Dear v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

Dear v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

Although the Secretary of State failed to address consistency with the previous inspector's decision (Flashley Carr Lane), this was academic because the harm to the Green Belt would have outweighed other considerations even if the previous decision had been considered. The Secretary of State did not err in law in the approach to the best interests of the children or in the reasons given for the weight attributed to them. The claim fails on all grounds.

Parties
Claimant: Ann Dear; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Statutory Application Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Hearing Statutory Challenge to Planning Appeal Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Town and Country Planning, Green Belt Policy, Traveller Sites, Temporary Planning Permission, Best Interests of the Child, Consistency in Administrative Decisions
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Town and Country Planning Green Belt Policy Traveller Sites Temporary Planning Permission Best Interests of the Child +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ann Dear

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Application Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Hearing Statutory Challenge to Planning Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State failed to consider or give reasons for departing from a previous inspector's decision regarding future provision of traveller sites (consistency)
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State erred in law by giving insufficient weight to the best interests of the children under Article 3(1) UNCRC and Article 8 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State failed to explain why only modest weight was given to the best interests of the children

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Secretary of State failed to address consistency with the previous inspector's decision (Flashley Carr Lane), this was academic because the harm to the Green Belt would have outweighed other considerations even if the previous decision had been considered. The Secretary of State did not err in law in the approach to the best interests of the children or in the reasons given for the weight attributed to them. The claim fails on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed