Stevens v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector had evidential basis for her visual impact finding and properly considered the best interests of the children as a primary consideration in the proportionality assessment under Article 8 ECHR and Article 3 UNCRC. Her decision was within her margin of discretion and proportionate; no legal error was established.

Parties: Claimant: Jane Stevens; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Guildford Borough Council
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 10 April 2013
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review (section 288 Application) / Final Judgment
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Green Belt Policy, Article 8 ECHR, UNCRC Article 3, Proportionality, Children's Rights, Judicial Review, Planning Policy Guidance PPG2

Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Law Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Green Belt Policy Article 8 ECHR UNCRC Article 3 Proportionality +3 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 41 Party arguments 2

Parties

Jane Stevens

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Guildford Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Application) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Inspector's factual finding on visual impact was supported by evidence
2 Whether the Inspector erred in her approach to the best interests of the children under Article 8 ECHR and Article 3 UNCRC

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed