London Borough of Islington & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

London Borough of Islington & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

The process for seeking exemptions was not procedurally unfair. The claimants were given sufficient information about the need to demonstrate adverse economic impact with robust evidence, and the high threshold for exemption was clear. The failure to provide detailed marking criteria in advance did not render the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Islington; Claimant: London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames; Claimant: London Borough of Lambeth; Claimant: London Borough of Camden; Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Permitted Development Rights, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Consultation Requirements, Local Authority Planning Powers
Administrative Law Planning Law Permitted Development Rights Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Consultation Requirements Local Authority Planning Powers

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Islington

Claimant

London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames

Claimant

London Borough of Lambeth

Claimant

London Borough of Camden

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the process for seeking exemptions from the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Amendment)(England) Order 2013 was procedurally unfair
  2. 2 Whether the claimants were given adequate information about the criteria and assessment process for exemptions
  3. 3 Whether the time allowed for applications was unfairly short

Ratio Decidendi

The process for seeking exemptions was not procedurally unfair. The claimants were given sufficient information about the need to demonstrate adverse economic impact with robust evidence, and the high threshold for exemption was clear. The failure to provide detailed marking criteria in advance did not render the process unlawful. The four-week period for applications was not unfair or unlawful. There was no further duty to consult on exemption criteria.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed