Mahadevan Krishnamohan v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

Mahadevan Krishnamohan v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

The outline planning application was validly made as the submitted plans were sufficient to identify the land; any procedural irregularity did not render the permission a nullity. The Inspector was entitled to find the permission valid and effective, and absent a successful judicial review, the permission stands. The Claimant's technical arguments were correctly rejected.

Parties
Claimant: Mahadevan Krishnamohan; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Buckinghamshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Validity of Planning Permissions, Certificates of Lawful Existing Use or Development (cleud), Procedural Requirements for Planning Applications, Interpretation of Planning Permissions, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Validity of Planning Permissions Certificates of Lawful Existing Use or Development (cleud) Procedural Requirements for Planning Applications Interpretation of Planning Permissions Judicial Review of Planning Decisions

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mahadevan Krishnamohan

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Buckinghamshire Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the outline planning application was validly made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 and the General Development Order 1963
  2. 2 Whether the absence or alleged deficiency of a site plan rendered the planning permission a nullity
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector misinterpreted previous findings and failed to afford procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The outline planning application was validly made as the submitted plans were sufficient to identify the land; any procedural irregularity did not render the permission a nullity. The Inspector was entitled to find the permission valid and effective, and absent a successful judicial review, the permission stands. The Claimant's technical arguments were correctly rejected.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review under section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed
  • Permission to introduce new sub-ground refused