Brown v London Borough of Ealing & Anor

Brown v London Borough of Ealing & Anor

The officer's report did not identify any residual non-MOL harm to be weighed against the benefits when considering 'very special circumstances' under paragraph 88 of the NPPF. The planning committee was not misled, and the correct policy approach was applied. The Warren Farm site was not designated as protected...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Carolyn Brown (an officer of the Hanwell Community Forum); Defendant: London Borough of Ealing; Interested Party: Queens Park Rangers Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Metropolitan Open Land (mol), Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Development Plan Policy, Public Access, Noise and Lighting Impact
Planning Law Administrative Law Metropolitan Open Land (mol) Planning Permission Judicial Review Development Plan Policy Public Access Noise and Lighting Impact

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carolyn Brown (an officer of the Hanwell Community Forum)

Claimant

London Borough of Ealing

Defendant

Queens Park Rangers Holdings Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning committee was misled by the officer's report regarding the correct approach to weighing harm under MOL/Green Belt policy (Ground 1)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed to consider the Warren Farm site's status as protected open space under policy 7.18 of the London Plan (Ground 2)

Ratio Decidendi

The officer's report did not identify any residual non-MOL harm to be weighed against the benefits when considering 'very special circumstances' under paragraph 88 of the NPPF. The planning committee was not misled, and the correct policy approach was applied. The Warren Farm site was not designated as protected open space under policy 7.18 of the London Plan, so failure to apply that policy was not an error. Both grounds for judicial review fail.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed