Westminster City Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Westminster City Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector’s CLEUD accurately reflected the use that had acquired immunity, was sufficiently precise, and did not require further operational detail. The Inspector applied the correct legal principles, gave adequate reasons, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness. The application to quash the Inspector’s decision is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Westminster City Council; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Mr Julian Cordani
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Judgment on Application to Quash Inspector's Decision Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development (cleud), Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Use Classes Order, Judicial Review, Statutory Appeals, Drafting of Lawful Development Certificates
Planning Law Administrative Law Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development (cleud) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Use Classes Order Judicial Review Statutory Appeals Drafting of Lawful Development Certificates

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Westminster City Council

Applicant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Mr Julian Cordani

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / Judgment on Application to Quash Inspector's Decision Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector's CLEUD went beyond the evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to apply the Secretary of State’s policy on drafting CLEUDs
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector gave sufficient reasons for his decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector’s CLEUD accurately reflected the use that had acquired immunity, was sufficiently precise, and did not require further operational detail. The Inspector applied the correct legal principles, gave adequate reasons, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness. The application to quash the Inspector’s decision is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is dismissed.