South Cambridgeshire District Council v the First Secretary of State, Mr Patrick McCarthy, Mrs P McCarthy, Mr Daniel O'Rourke
South Cambridgeshire District Council v the First Secretary of State, Mr Patrick McCarthy, Mrs P McCarthy, Mr Daniel O'Rourke
- 2004
[2004] EWHC 2933 (Admin), 15 December 2004. Highlights the need for planning inspectors to assess material considerations against development plans and policies. S applied under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s288 to quash the decision of an inspector appointed by First SoS granting planning permission for the stationing of two residential caravans and a shower block on a site occupied by the other three defendants (M). S also appealed under the s289 against the inspector's decision to quash their enforcement notice in respect of the use of the land. M appealed successfully against the enforcement notice and the refusal of planning permission. S appealed contending that the inspector was legally mistaken in his approach to the relevant development plan policies, took into account immaterial considerations and failed to give adequate reasons for his finding that M could be easily accommodated on the site. "Held": the planning inspector's decision to grant planning permission and quash SC's enforcement notice was flawed as he had failed to weigh the relevant material considerations against the relevant development plans and policies as required by the 1990 Act s54A; his reasons for finding that M could be accommodated easily on the site were inadequate. Appeal allowed.
SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DC V FIRST SOS AND OTHERS
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S288
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S289
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S54(A)
[2004] EWHC 2933 (Admin), 15 December 2004. Highlights the need for planning inspectors to assess material considerations against development plans and policies. S applied under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s288 to quash the decision of an inspector appointed by First SoS granting planning permission for the stationing of two residential caravans and a shower block on a site occupied by the other three defendants (M). S also appealed under the s289 against the inspector's decision to quash their enforcement notice in respect of the use of the land. M appealed successfully against the enforcement notice and the refusal of planning permission. S appealed contending that the inspector was legally mistaken in his approach to the relevant development plan policies, took into account immaterial considerations and failed to give adequate reasons for his finding that M could be easily accommodated on the site. "Held": the planning inspector's decision to grant planning permission and quash SC's enforcement notice was flawed as he had failed to weigh the relevant material considerations against the relevant development plans and policies as required by the 1990 Act s54A; his reasons for finding that M could be accommodated easily on the site were inadequate. Appeal allowed.
SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DC V FIRST SOS AND OTHERS
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S288
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S289
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S54(A)