AZ v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

AZ v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The inspector’s decision was unlawful because she failed to conduct a structured proportionality assessment under Article 8 ECHR, did not properly consider the psychiatric and family evidence, failed to ascertain and give primary consideration to the best interests of the applicant’s son, and did not consider the imposition of a personal or temporary planning permission. These failures breached the Hearings Rules, the Human Rights Act 1998, and relevant planning policy, rendering the decision susceptible to quashing under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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 (section 288 Tcpa) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Application allowed; inspector’s decision quashed; appeal remitted for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Article 8 ECHR, Proportionality Assessment, Temporary Planning Permission, Personal Planning Permission, Best Interests of the Child, Duty to Give Reasons, Inquisitorial Procedure, Enforcement of Planning Control
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Law Child Law Green Belt Policy Article 8 ECHR Proportionality Assessment Temporary Planning Permission +5 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 20 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 (section 288 Tcpa) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector’s decision was unlawful because she failed to conduct a structured proportionality assessment under Article 8 ECHR, did not properly consider the psychiatric and family evidence, failed to ascertain and give primary consideration to the best interests of the applicant’s son, and did not consider the imposition of a personal or temporary planning permission. These failures breached the Hearings Rules, the Human Rights Act 1998, and relevant planning policy, rendering the decision susceptible to quashing under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; inspector’s decision quashed; appeal remitted for reconsideration.

Orders

  • The applicant is to be anonymised as AZ for all purposes in these proceedings.
  • No publication of information likely to identify the child is permitted.