Banner Homes Central Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2012] EWHC 1431 (Admin) (09 May 2012)

Banner Homes Central Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2012] EWHC 1431 (Admin) (09 May 2012)

The Inspector did not err in law because the appeal proceeded on the basis that the adjacent land was part of Oakhurst's curtilage, and any mistake was not unfair or attributable to the Inspector. The Inspector's reasoning regarding the risk to tree T29 and the adequacy of amenity space was rational, adequately explained, and consistent with planning policy and law.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1431 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Banner Homes Central Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: London Borough of Hillingdon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Planning Appeal Under Section 288(5)(b) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tree Preservation Orders, Amenity Space, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Error of Law, Reasoning of Planning Inspector
Planning Law Administrative Law Tree Preservation Orders Amenity Space Planning Permission Judicial Review Error of Law Reasoning of Planning Inspector

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Banner Homes Central Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

London Borough of Hillingdon

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Planning Appeal Under Section 288(5)(b) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Planning Inspector erred in law in dismissing appeals against refusal of planning permission for development affecting protected tree T29 and amenity space at Oakhurst
  2. 2 Whether a mistake of fact amounting to an error of law occurred regarding the curtilage and use of the garden land
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector gave adequate reasons and properly considered relevant guidance

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law because the appeal proceeded on the basis that the adjacent land was part of Oakhurst's curtilage, and any mistake was not unfair or attributable to the Inspector. The Inspector's reasoning regarding the risk to tree T29 and the adequacy of amenity space was rational, adequately explained, and consistent with planning policy and law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed