DJ Baker v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2009] EWHC 1345 (Admin) (08 May 2009)

DJ Baker v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2009] EWHC 1345 (Admin) (08 May 2009)

There was no procedural unfairness in the Inspector conducting an unaccompanied site visit, as the appellant's agent expressly consented to it, and there was no evidence of prejudice or bias. The error in notification was corrected by subsequent contact, and the site visit's nature did not affect the substantive determination of the planning issue.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1345 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: DJ Baker; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Sedgemoor District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Natural Justice, Planning Enforcement, Site Visits, Costs
Administrative Law Planning Law Procedural Fairness Natural Justice Planning Enforcement Site Visits Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DJ Baker

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Sedgemoor District Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector's use of an unaccompanied site visit (USV) instead of an accompanied site visit (ASV) constituted procedural unfairness and breach of natural justice
  2. 2 Whether any procedural error prejudiced the appellant's case

Ratio Decidendi

There was no procedural unfairness in the Inspector conducting an unaccompanied site visit, as the appellant's agent expressly consented to it, and there was no evidence of prejudice or bias. The error in notification was corrected by subsequent contact, and the site visit's nature did not affect the substantive determination of the planning issue.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay the first respondent's costs, summarily assessed at £5,418, payable within 28 days