Forster v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Forster v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Permission to appeal is granted because there is a real question as to whether and how the risk of future complaints and resulting harm to an existing business (the George Tavern) should be taken into account as a material consideration in planning decisions. The planning system's treatment of such indirect outcomes justifies appellate consideration.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Pauline Forster; Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Respondent/defendant: London Borough of Tower Hamlets; Respondent/defendant: Swan Housing Association Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (planning) / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal granted; protective costs order granted/extended
Legal Topics
Material Considerations in Planning, Protective Costs Order, Noise Nuisance, Impact on Existing Businesses, Daylight and Sunlight Assessment
Planning Law Administrative Law Material Considerations in Planning Protective Costs Order Noise Nuisance Impact on Existing Businesses Daylight and Sunlight Assessment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pauline Forster

Appellant/claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Respondent/defendant

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Respondent/defendant

Swan Housing Association Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (planning) / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector failed to consider the harm to the viability of the George Tavern as a material consideration in granting planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the inspector and judge erred in law by equating acceptability for normal use with acceptability for artistic and photographic use in daylight and sunlight assessment
  3. 3 Whether a protective costs order should be granted or extended

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted because there is a real question as to whether and how the risk of future complaints and resulting harm to an existing business (the George Tavern) should be taken into account as a material consideration in planning decisions. The planning system's treatment of such indirect outcomes justifies appellate consideration.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal granted; protective costs order granted/extended

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted to the Court of Appeal
  • Protective costs order made: applicant's liability capped at £10,000, reciprocal cap for adverse costs at £20,000