Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 610 (28 March 2018)

Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 610 (28 March 2018)

The inspector did not misinterpret or misapply paragraph 55 of the NPPF. 'Isolated' in this context means physically separate from a settlement, not functionally isolated from services. The inspector's conclusion that the proposed dwellings were not 'isolated homes in the countryside' was a lawful exercise of planning judgment. There was no error of law and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 610
Parties
Appellant: Braintree District Council; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Greyread Ltd.; Third Respondent: Granville Developments
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Planning Appeal Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Appeal From the Administrative Court (planning Court) to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Paragraph 55, Meaning of 'isolated Homes in the Countryside', Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, Application of Planning Policy, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Paragraph 55 Meaning of 'isolated Homes in the Countryside' Sustainable Development in Rural Areas Application of Planning Policy 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Braintree District Council

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Greyread Ltd.

Second Respondent

Granville Developments

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Appeal Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Appeal From the Administrative Court (planning Court) to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector misinterpreted and misapplied paragraph 55 of the NPPF regarding 'isolated homes in the countryside'
  2. 2 Whether 'isolated' in paragraph 55 means physical or functional isolation
  3. 3 Whether the inspector's decision was unlawful due to misapplication of policy

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not misinterpret or misapply paragraph 55 of the NPPF. 'Isolated' in this context means physically separate from a settlement, not functionally isolated from services. The inspector's conclusion that the proposed dwellings were not 'isolated homes in the countryside' was a lawful exercise of planning judgment. There was no error of law and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the inspector's decision stands; no error of law found.