Boot, R (On the Application Of) v Elmbridge Borough Council

Boot, R (On the Application Of) v Elmbridge Borough Council

The Defendant erred in its interpretation of paragraph 89 of the NPPF by finding the development appropriate despite acknowledging limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt; any harm to openness renders development inappropriate under the policy. The Defendant was not required to have regard to the previous inspector's decision as the proposals were materially dissimilar.

Parties
Claimant: Amanda Boot; Defendant: Elmbridge Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; planning permission quashed.
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Planning Permission, National Planning Policy Framework, Material Considerations
Planning Law Administrative Law Green Belt Policy Planning Permission National Planning Policy Framework Material Considerations

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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Boot

Claimant

Elmbridge Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant erred in its interpretation of paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework regarding appropriateness of development in the Green Belt
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant failed to have regard to a material consideration, namely a previous inspector's decision on a similar development

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant erred in its interpretation of paragraph 89 of the NPPF by finding the development appropriate despite acknowledging limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt; any harm to openness renders development inappropriate under the policy. The Defendant was not required to have regard to the previous inspector's decision as the proposals were materially dissimilar.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; planning permission quashed.

Orders

  • The decision to grant planning permission is quashed.