Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The inspector did not misinterpret or misapply paragraph 55 of the NPPF. The term 'isolated' in the policy refers to physical separation from settlements, not to functional isolation from services and facilities. The inspector's conclusion that the proposed development was not 'isolated' was a matter of planning judgment and was lawfully reached. There was no error of law, and the appeal was dismissed.

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 Planning Policy, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Paragraph 55, Meaning of 'isolated Homes in the Countryside', Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Paragraph 55 Meaning of 'isolated Homes in the Countryside' Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

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 government policy in paragraph 55 of the NPPF regarding 'isolated homes in the countryside'
  2. 2 Whether the inspector's decision was unlawful due to misapplication of the policy

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not misinterpret or misapply paragraph 55 of the NPPF. The term 'isolated' in the policy refers to physical separation from settlements, not to functional isolation from services and facilities. The inspector's conclusion that the proposed development was not 'isolated' was a matter of planning judgment and was lawfully reached. There was no error of law, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed