Moore v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors [2010] EWHC 1698 (Admin) (12 July 2010)

Moore v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors [2010] EWHC 1698 (Admin) (12 July 2010)

The Inspector lawfully incorporated the application and plans into the planning permission, which defined the extent of the development, making an express condition unnecessary. The Inspector gave adequate and rational reasons regarding the impact on potential future freight use, and was entitled to conclude that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1698 (Admin)
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 Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Interpretation of Planning Conditions, Safety of Navigation, Material Considerations in Planning, Reasons for Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Planning Permission Interpretation of Planning Conditions Safety of Navigation Material Considerations in Planning Reasons for Planning Decisions

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment

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 application and plans into the planning permission, which defined the extent of the development, making an express condition unnecessary. The Inspector gave adequate and rational reasons regarding the impact on potential future freight use, and was entitled to conclude that this was not a compelling reason for refusal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed