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

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

The judge and Secretary of State sufficiently considered the likelihood of the family moving to another unauthorised Green Belt site and the resulting harm; there was no legal error or failure to address the relevant balancing exercise, and the decision was proportionate and compatible with Article 8 ECHR.

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, Temporary Planning Permission, Article 8 ECHR, Enforcement Notice, Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation
Planning Law Human Rights Law Green Belt Development Temporary Planning Permission Article 8 ECHR Enforcement Notice Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation

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 3
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 failed to properly consider the environmental harm of the likely move to another unauthorised Green Belt site if permission was refused
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to address the argument that refusal would result in equal or greater harm to the Green Belt
  3. 3 Whether the decision was compatible with Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The judge and Secretary of State sufficiently considered the likelihood of the family moving to another unauthorised Green Belt site and the resulting harm; there was no legal error or failure to address the relevant balancing exercise, and the decision was proportionate and compatible with Article 8 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed