Catesby Estates Ltd v Steer

Catesby Estates Ltd v Steer

The inspector did not err in law in his understanding or application of the concept of the 'setting' of a listed building. His approach was consistent with relevant policy, guidance, and legal principles, and he exercised planning judgment reasonably, considering both visual and historic factors.

Parties
Appellant: Catesby Estates Ltd.; Appellant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Respondent: Peter Steer; Intervener: Historic England
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Planning Permission, Heritage Asset Setting, Statutory Interpretation

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catesby Estates Ltd.

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Appellant

Peter Steer

Respondent

Historic England

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 Did the inspector err in law in his understanding of the concept of the 'setting' of a grade I listed building under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990?
  2. 2 Was the inspector's approach to the effects of the development on the setting of Kedleston Hall consistent with relevant policy and guidance?

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not err in law in his understanding or application of the concept of the 'setting' of a listed building. His approach was consistent with relevant policy, guidance, and legal principles, and he exercised planning judgment reasonably, considering both visual and historic factors.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The order of Lang J. is set aside.
  • The inspector's decision is upheld.