Coates v The Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

Coates v The Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

The judge did not act unfairly in refusing an adjournment; the claimants had ample opportunity to amend and present their case. The new grounds and evidence could and should have been raised earlier and were in any event unarguable. The planning inspector's approach to Article 8 ECHR was lawful and proportionate. Payment of council tax did not preclude enforcement action. The site was not previously developed land under the NPPF. The appeals and application to admit new evidence are dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Alan Coates; First Respondent: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (strike Out and Refusal to Re Open Order)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Article 8 ECHR, Legitimate Expectation, Previously Developed Land, Approbation and Reprobation
Planning Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Strike Out Applications Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Article 8 ECHR Legitimate Expectation Previously Developed Land +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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Coates

Appellant

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (strike Out and Refusal to Re Open Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court judge erred in refusing an adjournment to allow amendment of the claim before striking out under CPR Part 3.4
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing to re-open the strike out order under CPR Part 3.1(7) in light of new grounds and evidence
  3. 3 Whether the planning inspector erred in her approach to Article 8 ECHR rights of residents who did not participate in the inquiry

Ratio Decidendi

The judge did not act unfairly in refusing an adjournment; the claimants had ample opportunity to amend and present their case. The new grounds and evidence could and should have been raised earlier and were in any event unarguable. The planning inspector's approach to Article 8 ECHR was lawful and proportionate. Payment of council tax did not preclude enforcement action. The site was not previously developed land under the NPPF. The appeals and application to admit new evidence are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against April decision dismissed
  • Appeal against November decision dismissed