Watt, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hackney & Anor

Watt, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hackney & Anor

The planning committee's decision was materially affected by a mistake of fact regarding the nature of playground boundaries, leading to a misleading sunlight assessment and unfairness to objectors; this satisfies the criteria for mistake of fact as a ground for judicial review, requiring the planning permission to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Judith Watt; Defendant: London Borough of Hackney; Interested Party: Zoe Chan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Permission quashed; costs awarded as specified.
Legal Topics
Mistake of Fact, Overshadowing, Sunlight Assessment, Listed Building, Conservation Area, Judicial Review Grounds, Costs
Planning Law Administrative Law Mistake of Fact Overshadowing Sunlight Assessment Listed Building Conservation Area Judicial Review Grounds +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Judith Watt

Claimant

London Borough of Hackney

Defendant

Zoe Chan

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning authority's decision was vitiated by a mistake of fact regarding the nature of playground boundaries affecting sunlight assessment
  2. 2 Whether the planning officer's report misled the committee on compliance with BRE guidance
  3. 3 Whether failure to adjourn for further independent assessment or consult Hackney Learning Trust constituted procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The planning committee's decision was materially affected by a mistake of fact regarding the nature of playground boundaries, leading to a misleading sunlight assessment and unfairness to objectors; this satisfies the criteria for mistake of fact as a ground for judicial review, requiring the planning permission to be quashed.

Court Disposition

Permission quashed; costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay Defendant’s costs of defending the action until 27th April 2016, capped at £6000.
  • Defendant to pay Claimant’s costs incurred after 27th April 2016, excluding costs of Mr Beck’s final witness statement, limited to costs reasonably incurred in advancing the successful ground, to be assessed in default of agreement.