Jones v Mordue & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 1243 (03 December 2015)

Jones v Mordue & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 1243 (03 December 2015)

The Inspector's reasoning, including express references to Policy EV12 and paragraph 134 of the NPPF, demonstrated compliance with section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act. The standard for adequacy of reasons is that set out in Save Britain's Heritage and South Bucks DC v Porter (No. 2), not a heightened...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 1243
Parties
Appellant: Aidan Jones; First Respondent: Jane Margaret Mordue; Second Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Third Respondent: South Northamptonshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division), Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Listed Buildings, Planning Permission, Adequacy of Reasons, Balancing Public Benefits and Heritage Harm
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Law Listed Buildings Planning Permission Adequacy of Reasons Balancing Public Benefits and Heritage Harm

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aidan Jones

Appellant

Jane Margaret Mordue

First Respondent

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Second Respondent

South Northamptonshire Council

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division), Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Inspector comply with the duty under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to give considerable weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings?
  2. 2 Was the Inspector's reasoning adequate under established legal principles?
  3. 3 Did the Inspector properly apply section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004?

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's reasoning, including express references to Policy EV12 and paragraph 134 of the NPPF, demonstrated compliance with section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act. The standard for adequacy of reasons is that set out in Save Britain's Heritage and South Bucks DC v Porter (No. 2), not a heightened requirement. No substantial doubt arises as to whether the Inspector erred in law; the appeal is allowed and planning permission upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the Inspector granting planning permission upheld
  • Respondent's notice dismissed