Lee v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 558 (17 June 2016)

Lee v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 558 (17 June 2016)

The Secretary of State and the Judge sufficiently addressed the likelihood of the appellant's family moving to another unauthorised Green Belt site and its consequences. The proportionality analysis under Article 8 ECHR was properly conducted, and there was no legal error in the planning balance or in the approach to the Inspector's findings. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 558
Parties
Appellant: Mrs Jane Lee; 1st Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; 2nd Respondent: Runnymede Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal (planning) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Development, Enforcement Notice, Temporary Planning Permission, Article 8 ECHR, Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation, Proportionality Analysis
Planning Law Human Rights Law Green Belt Development Enforcement Notice Temporary Planning Permission Article 8 ECHR Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Proportionality Analysis

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

Parties

Mrs Jane Lee

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

1st Respondent

Runnymede Borough Council

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (planning) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State and the Judge failed to properly consider the likelihood and environmental impact of the appellant's family moving to another unauthorised Green Belt site if permission was refused
  2. 2 Whether the proportionality analysis under Article 8 ECHR was properly conducted

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State and the Judge sufficiently addressed the likelihood of the appellant's family moving to another unauthorised Green Belt site and its consequences. The proportionality analysis under Article 8 ECHR was properly conducted, and there was no legal error in the planning balance or in the approach to the Inspector's findings. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed