Valente v First Secretary of State

Valente v First Secretary of State

The inspector failed to take into account the restoration of the Barn as a material planning consideration, which was capable of constituting very special circumstances justifying development in the Green Belt. This omission was sufficiently important to warrant quashing the decision.

Parties
Claimant: Michele Christopher Luigi Valente; First Defendant: The First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Thurrock Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
application allowed; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Section 288 Application, Green Belt Development, Enabling Development, Listed Buildings, Material Planning Considerations, Legitimate Expectation, Costs
Planning Law Administrative Law Section 288 Application Green Belt Development Enabling Development Listed Buildings Material Planning Considerations Legitimate Expectation +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michele Christopher Luigi Valente

Claimant

The First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Thurrock Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector failed to take into account the restoration of the Barn as a material planning consideration
  2. 2 Whether there were very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt
  3. 3 Whether there was a material change in planning circumstances since the original permission

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector failed to take into account the restoration of the Barn as a material planning consideration, which was capable of constituting very special circumstances justifying development in the Green Belt. This omission was sufficiently important to warrant quashing the decision.

Court Disposition

application allowed; decision quashed

Orders

  • The decision of the first defendant dated 20th November 2002 is quashed.
  • The first defendant is to pay the claimant's costs; no order for costs against the second defendant.