Lyndon-Stanford v Mid Suffolk District Council [2016] EWHC 3284 (Admin) (19 December 2016)

Lyndon-Stanford v Mid Suffolk District Council [2016] EWHC 3284 (Admin) (19 December 2016)

The officer reports were misleading regarding the Claimant's offer to acquire and restore the Barns and the history of negotiations, failing to correct the impression that the Claimant had not committed to preservation. The reports did not adequately address the relevance of deliberate neglect or the optimum viable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3284 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Lyndon-Stanford QC; Defendant: Mid Suffolk District Council; Interested Party: Duncan West; Interested Party: Peter West; Interested Party: Warren Hill Farms
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; planning permission and listed building consent quashed.
Legal Topics
Listed Buildings, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Heritage Asset Conservation, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Section 66(1) Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Procedural Fairness
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Law Listed Buildings Planning Permission Judicial Review Heritage Asset Conservation National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) +2 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Lyndon-Stanford QC

Claimant

Mid Suffolk District Council

Defendant

Duncan West

Interested Party

Peter West

Interested Party

Warren Hill Farms

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's decision to grant planning permission and listed building consent was unlawful due to misleading officer reports and failure to consider material matters
  2. 2 Whether the Council failed to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building as required by section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
  3. 3 Whether the Council misdirected itself regarding national planning policy, including optimum viable use and deliberate neglect

Ratio Decidendi

The officer reports were misleading regarding the Claimant's offer to acquire and restore the Barns and the history of negotiations, failing to correct the impression that the Claimant had not committed to preservation. The reports did not adequately address the relevance of deliberate neglect or the optimum viable use in light of the Claimant's proposals. These deficiencies were material and rendered the Council's decision unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; planning permission and listed building consent quashed.

Orders

  • The decisions of the Mid Suffolk District Council granting planning permission and listed building consent are quashed.
  • The Council is to reconsider the applications in accordance with the law and this judgment.