Winifred Helen Ward v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 676 (Admin)
Bryan Rogers v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
13 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2528 (Admin)
High Court
Someone wanted to build a caravan site in a protected area. The council and inspector said no. The person challenged the decision in court. The court gave them another chance to make their case about the temporary nature of the request but said they didn't have grounds to argue about the children's needs because that had already been considered.
Key Facts
- •Claimant sought permission for a residential caravan site in the Green Belt.
- •Planning permission was refused, and an enforcement notice issued.
- •Claimant appealed both decisions, which were dismissed by an Inspector.
- •Claimant brought a s.288 challenge (statutory review) and a s.289 appeal (against the enforcement notice).
- •The s.289 appeal was withdrawn due to a procedural error.
- •The s.288 claim was filed late due to delays in the court issuing sealed documents.
- •The court considered an application to extend time for service of the s.288 claim form.
- •The grounds for the s.288 challenge were: the Inspector erred in her approach to temporary planning permission and in considering the best interests of the children.
Legal Principles
The court has the power to extend time for service under CPR r.3.1(2)(a). Service of a claim form is distinct from other procedural steps; Denton and Mitchell principles don't apply.
R (Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 355
Weight attached to material considerations and planning judgment is for the decision-maker, not the court. A s.288 challenge doesn't review the planning merits.
Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin)
Planning decisions should be read straightforwardly, appreciating planning judgment and lawful policy application.
Barwood Strategic Land II LLP v East Staffordshire Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 893
Reasons for a decision must be intelligible and adequate.
South Bucks District Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953
In Green Belt cases, substantial weight is attached to the best interests of the child, which are a primary consideration, but not determinative.
ZH(Tanzania) v SSHD [2011]UKSC 4; Zoumbas v SSHD [2013] 1 WLR 3690; Dear v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 29 (Admin)
When considering temporary planning permission in the Green Belt, the substantial weight attached to harm may be reduced because it's limited in time.
Moore v SSCLG and London Borough of Bromley [2013] EWCA Civ. 1194
Outcomes
The court extended time for service of the s.288 claim form.
The delay was due to matters outside the Claimant's control (court delays); the Claimant's representatives took reasonable steps to chase the sealed documents.
Permission granted for ground 1 of the s.288 challenge (Inspector's approach to temporary planning permission).
The Inspector didn't adequately address the reduction in harm to the Green Belt from a temporary permit, and failed to consider longer temporary periods beyond the council's suggested two years.
Permission refused for ground 2 of the s.288 challenge (Inspector's consideration of the best interests of the children).
The Inspector adequately considered the best interests of the children as a primary consideration, though ultimately found that the harm to the Green Belt outweighed other factors.
Similar Cases
Noel McGinley v The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3333 (Admin)
The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin)
Basildon Borough Council v Eliza Sanders & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2954 (KB)
Elizabeth Soilleux v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities
[2023] EWHC 204 (Admin)