Green v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Green v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The planning permission, with its conditions, is lawful and sufficiently clear, does not grant substantially more than applied for, and is not void for uncertainty; the Inspector's reasoning for refusing retention of existing structures is tenable; costs were improperly awarded to third and fifth respondents as they had no separate issue or interest requiring representation.

Parties
Appellant: Roger Michael Green; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Canterbury City Council; Third Respondent: Bridget Jones; Fourth Respondent: Joseph Jones; Fifth Respondent: Angie Jones; Sixth Respondent: Shane Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on issues (i) and (ii), allowed on issue (iii)
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Caravan Sites, Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation, Enforcement Notices, Costs Awards
Planning Law Administrative Law Planning Permission Caravan Sites Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Enforcement Notices Costs Awards

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Michael Green

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Canterbury City Council

Second Respondent

Bridget Jones

Third Respondent

Joseph Jones

Fourth Respondent

Angie Jones

Fifth Respondent

Shane Jones

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether planning permission granted was substantially different from that applied for
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State's reasons for granting permission and refusing retention of existing structures could be impugned
  3. 3 Whether costs were properly awarded against the appellant in favour of third and fifth respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The planning permission, with its conditions, is lawful and sufficiently clear, does not grant substantially more than applied for, and is not void for uncertainty; the Inspector's reasoning for refusing retention of existing structures is tenable; costs were improperly awarded to third and fifth respondents as they had no separate issue or interest requiring representation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on issues (i) and (ii), allowed on issue (iii)

Orders

  • Planning permission upheld
  • Costs award to third and fifth respondents set aside