Bown v Bristol City Council

Bown v Bristol City Council

The claimant was not a person aggrieved under section 288 of the 1990 Act as he was neither the appellant in the planning process, nor a substantial objector, nor did he have any relevant interest in the land. His role as an employee of the decision maker did not confer standing.

Parties
Claimant: Jonathan Bown; Defendant: Bristol City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Standing
Outcome
Claim dismissed for lack of standing
Legal Topics
Tree Preservation Orders, Standing (locus Standi), Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Administrative Law Planning Law Tree Preservation Orders Standing (locus Standi) Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Bown

Claimant

Bristol City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Standing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has standing under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to challenge a Tree Preservation Order

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not a person aggrieved under section 288 of the 1990 Act as he was neither the appellant in the planning process, nor a substantial objector, nor did he have any relevant interest in the land. His role as an employee of the decision maker did not confer standing.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed for lack of standing

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Order for costs to be determined after written representations, with a provisional cap of £5,000