AZ v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2012] EWHC 3660 (Admin) (20 December 2012)

AZ v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2012] EWHC 3660 (Admin) (20 December 2012)

The inspector did not err in law. She considered the psychiatric evidence, the Article 8 rights of the applicant and his family, and the possibility of a personal or temporary permission. She found no evidence that the appeal site was the only suitable location, and the applicant had not made efforts to find alternatives. The interference with Article 8 rights was proportionate given the substantial harm to the green belt and the lack of very special circumstances. The decision was neither irrational nor procedurally unfair.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3660 (Admin)
Parties
Applicant: AZ; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: South Gloucestershire District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Article 8 ECHR, Planning Permission, Temporary Planning Permission, Personal Condition, Proportionality Assessment, Enforcement Notices, Family Life, Home, Disability and Planning, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Law Green Belt Policy Article 8 ECHR Planning Permission Temporary Planning Permission Personal Condition +6 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AZ

Applicant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

South Gloucestershire District Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector failed to properly consider and assess the psychiatric evidence and its weight
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to consider the Article 8 rights of the applicant, his son, his wife, his sister-in-law, and his son's biological mother
  3. 3 Whether the inspector failed to properly consider the imposition of a personal condition and the claim for temporary planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not err in law. She considered the psychiatric evidence, the Article 8 rights of the applicant and his family, and the possibility of a personal or temporary permission. She found no evidence that the appeal site was the only suitable location, and the applicant had not made efforts to find alternatives. The interference with Article 8 rights was proportionate given the substantial harm to the green belt and the lack of very special circumstances. The decision was neither irrational nor procedurally unfair.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Anonymity order granted for the applicant and his family under CPR 39.2(4) and Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933
  • No order for costs specified in the judgment