Geoffrey Simmonds, R (on the application of Geoffrey Simmonds) v Blaby District Council & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2217 (KB)
Nicole Fairey, R (on the application of) v East Riding of Yorkshire Council
23 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 361 (Admin)
High Court
A homeowner challenged the council's approval for building work near a historic building. The council agreed it made a mistake and will reconsider its decision. The judge also sorted out some paperwork and fees.
Key Facts
- •Judicial review claim (CO/4165/2022) by Nicole Fairey against East Riding of Yorkshire Council concerning planning permission (20/02106/PLF) and listed building consent (20/02266/PLB) granted on 30 September 2022 for alterations and refurbishment of dwelling houses.
- •Claimant argued the Council failed to address whether the development would cause substantial harm to the listed buildings (Ground 3).
- •Defendant did not contest the claim and conceded to quashing the decisions on Ground 3.
- •Interested party, Susan Filby, did not contest the claim.
- •Agreed order quashed the decisions and remitted them for reconsideration.
- •Initial consent order lacked provision for permission for judicial review and necessary fee.
- •Judge ruled that permission for judicial review was necessary, requiring a £108 consent order fee, but not the £770 continuation fee.
Legal Principles
Open justice principle applies to judicial review determinations.
Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2022
No application for judicial review shall be made unless leave of the High Court has been obtained.
Senior Courts Act 1981
Fees for judicial review proceedings are governed by the Courts Act 2003 and the Fees Order (SI 2008 No. 1053).
Courts Act 2003 s.92, SI 2008 No. 1053
Outcomes
Permission for the claim to proceed was granted.
Inherent in the agreed quashing of the decisions.
The Defendant's decisions to grant planning permission and listed building consent were quashed and remitted for reconsideration.
Defendant conceded on Ground 3: failure to adequately address potential substantial harm to listed buildings.
Defendant ordered to pay Claimant's costs (£6,708).
Agreed between the parties.
£108 consent order fee was required, but the £770 continuation fee was not.
Judge determined that the £770 fee was unnecessary in this case of an agreed order at the permission stage, differentiating it from a 'rolled-up' hearing. The £108 fee covered the court's administrative handling of the consent order.
Similar Cases
Halton Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 705 (Admin)
Pyrosome Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 563 (Admin)
East Quayside 12 LLP v The Council of the City of Newcastle Upon Tyne
[2023] EWCA Civ 359
Jonathan Armstrong, R (on the application of) v Ashford Borough Council
[2023] EWHC 317 (Admin)