Phelps v First Secretary of State London Borough of Bromley & Ors

Phelps v First Secretary of State London Borough of Bromley & Ors

The appellant failed to establish an uncontentious and objectively verifiable error of fact in the inspector's calculation of the cubic capacity of the extension. Any alleged error was not solely the inspector's responsibility, and the criteria for a material error of fact amounting to an error of law were not met. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Gary Phelps; First Respondent: First Secretary of State; Second Respondent: London Borough of Bromley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Statutory Planning Appeal / High Court Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice Appeal, Permitted Development Rights, Material Error of Fact, Town and Country Planning (general Permitted Development) Order 1995
Planning Law Administrative Law Enforcement Notice Appeal Permitted Development Rights Material Error of Fact Town and Country Planning (general Permitted Development) Order 1995

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Phelps

Appellant

First Secretary of State

First Respondent

London Borough of Bromley

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Planning Appeal / High Court Appeal Under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector made a material error of fact in calculating the cubic capacity of the extension
  2. 2 Whether any error of fact amounted to an error of law justifying quashing the inspector's decision

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to establish an uncontentious and objectively verifiable error of fact in the inspector's calculation of the cubic capacity of the extension. Any alleged error was not solely the inspector's responsibility, and the criteria for a material error of fact amounting to an error of law were not met. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed