QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MARTIN PERRETT||Claimant|
|THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT||Defendant|
|- and -|
|WEST DORSET DISTRICT COUNCIL||Interested Party|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mark Beard (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
The Interested Party did not attend and was not represented
Crown Copyright ©
"An appeal may be brought on any of the following groundsó
(a) that, in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by the matters stated in the notice, planning permission ought to be granted or, as the case may be, the condition or limitation concerned ought to be discharged...
(d) that, at the date when the notice was issued, no enforcement action could be taken in respect of any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters".
"99... There is absolutely no policy support for allowing B2 uses and a ground works contractor's depot in this location; indeed these yards are, as the Council submitted, just about the most unsuitable location for such uses that it is possible to imagine."
"(5)In relation to any proceedings in the High Court or the Court of Appeal brought by virtue of this section the power to make rules of court shall include power to make rulesó
(a) prescribing the powers of the High Court or the Court of Appeal with respect to the remitting of the matter with the opinion or direction of the court for re-hearing and determination by the Secretary of State..."
"(14) Where the court is of the opinion that the decision appealed against was erroneous in point of law, it will not set aside or vary that decision but will remit the matter to the Secretary of State for re-hearing and determination in accordance with the opinion of the court."
"Procedure following remitting of appeal
21. - (1) Where a decision of an inspector on an appeal for which an inquiry has been held is remitted by any court to the Secretary of State for rehearing and redetermination, the Secretary of State -
(a) shall send to the persons entitled to appear at the inquiry who appeared at it a written statement of the matters on which further representations are invited in order for him to consider the appeal further;
(b) shall give those persons the opportunity of making written representations to him about those matters or asking for the re-opening of the inquiry; and
(c) may, as he thinks fit, cause the inquiry to be re-opened (whether by the same or a different inspector) and if he does so paragraphs (2) to (8) of rule 9 shall apply as if the references to an inquiry were references to a re-opened inquiry.
(2) Those persons making representations or asking for the inquiry to be re-opened under paragraph (1)(b) shall send such representations or requests to the Secretary of State within 3 weeks of the date of the written statement sent under paragraph (1)(a)."
"I have considered the points you have made in relation to how the appeals should be re-determined. I accept that the decision on these appeals needs to be taken 'de novo'. However, in my opinion this does not mean that all the arguments put forward at the earlier inquiry need to be rehearsed and presented all over again. Previous evidence together with any new material would be taken into account when the appeals are re-determined.
In this respect, the flaws identified by the Court in quashing the original decision (ground (a)) will be relevant together with any material changes in circumstances since the close of the previous inquiry. This will form the basis of the scope of the matters to be rehearsed before the Inspector at the new inquiry."
"It was plain that when a court had detected an error of law and the error of law was pointed out, the Secretary of State on reconsidering the position in the light of what had been said about the matter by the court might come to the conclusion that other alterations had to be made to his decision in the light of the court's expression of view as to the error of law. He could not be restricted to simply correcting the error of law on the face of the document, but if he made changes which went further than those which were called for as a result of the expression of view which had been tendered by the court, and did so without reference to compelling new material, it stood to reason that there might be further litigation arising out of this revised decision."