Cherwell District Council, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State

Cherwell District Council, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State

The development is to be carried out on behalf of the Crown and is protected by Crown immunity; the non-statutory procedure was lawful; there was no legal requirement to consider alternative sites or apply the sequential test; the curtilage was properly interpreted; the impact on local services was not excessive; and there was no requirement for temporary permission. No error of law was established.

Parties
Claimant: Cherwell District Council; Defendant: First Secretary of State; Interested Party: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment and Post Judgment Applications
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Crown Immunity, Planning Permission, Statutory Interpretation, Enforcement of Planning Control, Alternative Sites in Planning, Sequential Test in Planning Policy, Curtilage Definition, Impact on Local Services
Administrative Law Planning Law Crown Immunity Planning Permission Statutory Interpretation Enforcement of Planning Control Alternative Sites in Planning Sequential Test in Planning Policy +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cherwell District Council

Claimant

First Secretary of State

Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment and Post Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the development required planning permission or was protected by Crown immunity
  2. 2 Whether the use of the non-statutory procedure was lawful
  3. 3 Whether alternative sites had to be considered

Ratio Decidendi

The development is to be carried out on behalf of the Crown and is protected by Crown immunity; the non-statutory procedure was lawful; there was no legal requirement to consider alternative sites or apply the sequential test; the curtilage was properly interpreted; the impact on local services was not excessive; and there was no requirement for temporary permission. No error of law was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Council to pay First Secretary of State's costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed