Save Britain's Heritage, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire County Council [2022] EWHC 2984 (Admin) (25 November 2022)

Save Britain's Heritage, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire County Council [2022] EWHC 2984 (Admin) (25 November 2022)

The Council did not err in law in its interpretation and application of paragraph B.1(a) of Class B, as the officer exercised planning judgment in finding the building was neither unsafe nor uninhabitable, so the exclusion was not engaged. Any errors in language or in the solicitor's letter were immaterial. The reasons for the decision were adequately set out in the delegated decision report, fulfilling the statutory duty.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2984 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: SAVE BRITAIN'S HERITAGE; Defendant: HEREFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL; Interested Party: GERARD DAVIES
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Permitted Development Rights, Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Demolition of Buildings, Interpretation of GPDO 2015, Duty to Give Reasons
Administrative Law Planning Law Permitted Development Rights Judicial Review Planning Permission Demolition of Buildings Interpretation of GPDO 2015 Duty to Give Reasons

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAVE BRITAIN'S HERITAGE

Claimant

HEREFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Defendant

GERARD DAVIES

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council erred in its interpretation and application of paragraph B.1(a) of Class B, Part 11, Schedule 2 to the GPDO 2015 regarding permitted development rights for demolition
  2. 2 Whether the Council failed to provide an adequate and intelligible record of its decision and reasons as required by the Openness of Local Government Regulations 2014

Ratio Decidendi

The Council did not err in law in its interpretation and application of paragraph B.1(a) of Class B, as the officer exercised planning judgment in finding the building was neither unsafe nor uninhabitable, so the exclusion was not engaged. Any errors in language or in the solicitor's letter were immaterial. The reasons for the decision were adequately set out in the delegated decision report, fulfilling the statutory duty.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted on Ground 1, refused on Ground 2
  • Claim for judicial review dismissed