Moore v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors

Moore v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors

The Inspector lawfully incorporated the plans and application into the permission, which defined the limits of the development, making an express condition unnecessary. The Inspector gave adequate reasons and was entitled to conclude that potential future use of the river by freight vessels was not a compelling reason to refuse permission, given the lack of evidence of imminent increased freight use and the existence of regulatory powers to manage future risks.

Parties
Appellant: Nigel Moore; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government; Second Respondent: Hounslow London Borough Council; Third Respondent: Hither Green Developments Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Permission
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Permissions, Conditions on Planning Permissions, Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, Safety of Navigation, Future Use of Waterways for Freight
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Planning Permissions Conditions on Planning Permissions Material Considerations in Planning Decisions Safety of Navigation Future Use of Waterways for Freight

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Moore

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

First Respondent

Hounslow London Borough Council

Second Respondent

Hither Green Developments Ltd

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector unlawfully failed to impose a condition restricting encroachment into the navigational channel
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to give adequate reasons or make rational findings regarding the impact on potential increased use of the waterways by waterborne freight

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector lawfully incorporated the plans and application into the permission, which defined the limits of the development, making an express condition unnecessary. The Inspector gave adequate reasons and was entitled to conclude that potential future use of the river by freight vessels was not a compelling reason to refuse permission, given the lack of evidence of imminent increased freight use and the existence of regulatory powers to manage future risks.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed