Whitcher v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 3148 (Admin) (28 October 2015)

Whitcher v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 3148 (Admin) (28 October 2015)

The Secretary of State's reasons in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the decision letter were adequate. The appellant's arguments did not disclose a realistic prospect of success on appeal. The costs claimed by the respondent were excessive in relation to time spent on advice and were summarily reduced.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3148 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Whitcher; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: New Forest National Park Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment and Post Judgment Discussion
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Challenge to Planning Decision, Temporary Planning Permission, Costs Assessment, Permission to Appeal
Administrative Law Planning Law Challenge to Planning Decision Temporary Planning Permission Costs Assessment Permission to Appeal

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Whitcher

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

New Forest National Park Authority

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment and Post Judgment Discussion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State properly considered the appellant's case for temporary planning permission
  2. 2 Adequacy of reasons in the decision letter (paragraphs 45 and 46)
  3. 3 Assessment of costs incurred by respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's reasons in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the decision letter were adequate. The appellant's arguments did not disclose a realistic prospect of success on appeal. The costs claimed by the respondent were excessive in relation to time spent on advice and were summarily reduced.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Costs summarily assessed at £2,500 in favour of the respondents