Sharma v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

Sharma v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Inspector lawfully considered the fallback position, visual and spatial aspects of openness, the proposed buffer zone, and gave adequate reasons. The Inspector's planning judgment was not irrational or legally flawed. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Peter Sharma; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Spelthorne Borough Council; Interested Party: National Carparking Limited; Interested Parties: Jim Power and Ann Power
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Planning Appeal Under S.289 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Appeal From Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Enforcement Notice, Lawful Development Certificates, Material Change of Use, Openness in Green Belt, Very Special Circumstances, Planning Appeals
Planning Law Administrative Law Green Belt Policy Enforcement Notice Lawful Development Certificates Material Change of Use Openness in Green Belt Very Special Circumstances +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Sharma

Applicant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Spelthorne Borough Council

Second Respondent

National Carparking Limited

Interested Party

Jim Power and Ann Power

Interested Parties

Procedural Posture

Planning Appeal Under S.289 Town & Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Appeal From Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to properly consider the fallback position under the Lawful Development Certificates when assessing openness in the Green Belt
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector properly considered the visual dimension of openness from all relevant viewpoints
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector properly considered the impact of a proposed buffer zone condition on openness

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector lawfully considered the fallback position, visual and spatial aspects of openness, the proposed buffer zone, and gave adequate reasons. The Inspector's planning judgment was not irrational or legally flawed. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Inspector's decision stands
  • Applicant's appeal is dismissed