|
JUDICIAL REVIEW - DETAILED STATEMENT OF GROUNDS |
|
HOME CUISINE ENVIRONMENT INSURANCE HORSES LEGENDS LAW NEWS PRODUCE RIGHTS SITE INDEX TRANSPORT WHISTLEBLOWING |
|
Claimant: ANYONE In
the High Court of Justice Claim No. (HQ______) Queens
Bench Division Administrative
Court Claimant THE QUEEN on the application of ANYONE
and Defendant
YOUR COUNCIL DETAILED STATEMENT OF GROUNDS ACCOMPANYING CLAIM FORM FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 1.
Under
Part VII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the
Planning and Compensation Act 1991 (“the T&CP Act”) the
Defendant has certain duties with respect to enforcing planning
controls. 2.
Under
Part I of Planning Policy Guidance note 15 s. 1.2 and 1.6, Planning and
the Historic Environment, (“PPG15”) the Defendant is directed as to
its role as steward of the historic built environment and methodology. 3.
Under
Part B s. 23 of Planning Policy Guidance note 16, Archaeology and
Planning, (“PPG16”) the Defendant is directed to consult generally
with English Heritage and other archaeological advice groups. 4.
Under
Articles 6, 8, 14 and Part III The First Protocol, Article 1 of the
Human Rights Act 1998 (“the HR Act”) the Defendant has certain
duties with respect to the rights of the Claimant. 5.
Under
the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 S.5 as amended by the Local
Government Act 2000 Schedule 5 (“the LGH Act”) the Defendant has
certain duties with respect to their own acts or omissions which
contravene any enactments or rules of law. 6.
The
Defendant is under a duty pursuant to Sections 172 – 179 of the
T&CP Act to ensure extant enforcement notices are complied with. 7.
Part
I of PPG15 and Part B of PPG16 requires the Defendant when performing
its functions under Sections 172 –179 of the T&CP Act, to act in
accordance with any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. In particular it is required to consult generally and to
consider any available evidence as to historic buildings in their
jurisdiction, with a view to identifying vulnerable historic buildings
under their protective stewardship. 8.
By
Section 5 (2) (a) of the LGH Act when the Defendant is alerted to any
contravention of any enactment or rule of law on their part, they are to
arrange for a report to the Full Council. 9.
Article
6 of the HR Act requires the Defendant when performing its functions
under Sections 172 – 179 of the T&CP Act and Section 5 (2) (a) of
the LGH Act, to ensure a person receives a fair hearing in a reasonable
time by an independent tribunal established by law. 10.
Article
8 of the HR Act and Part III The First Protocol, Article 1, requires the
Defendant when performing its functions under Sections 172 – 179 of
the T&CP Act and Section 5 (2) (a) of the LGH Act, to respect a
persons private, family and home life, and his peaceful enjoyment of
possessions, such as not to interfere. 11.
Article
14 of the HR Act requires the Defendant when performing its functions
under Sections 172 – 179 of the T&CP Act and Section 5 (2) (a) of
the LGH Act, to secure for every person the enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms set out under
Articles 6, 8, 14 and Part III The First Protocol, Article 1 of
the Human Rights Act 1998, without discrimination on any ground. 12.
A
building situated within the defendant(s) area known as, The Old Steam
House in Herstmonceux, is vulnerable and at risk by virtue of being
deprived of a reasonable and beneficial use within the meaning of PPG15
and PPG16. Said building is
said by experts to be possessed of considerable historic interest. 13.
A
formal complaint was lodged with the Defendant requesting a report be
prepared as to the validity of an enforcement notice served by the
Defendant under Sections 172-179 of the T&CP Act 1991, which notice
seeks to prevent the residential occupation of the said historic
building and which notice appears to have been based on incorrect
information and discriminated against the Claimant. 14.
Said
historic building is occupied in contravention of said defective
enforcement notice, which notice the Defendant, despite the expert
evidence to the contrary, continues to assert is valid and extant. 15.
The
Defendant has failed to secure the cessation of the said residential
occupation or to ensure the occupier receives a fair hearing in a
reasonable time by an independent tribunal established by law. 16.
The
Defendant has failed to prepare a report to the full council as per
Section 5 (2) (a) of the LGH Act as to validity of the said notice,
where expert evidence indicates the Defendant acted ultra vires when
performing its functions. 17.
The
Defendant has failed to have regard to an Inspector’s decision letter
confirming that the refusal of a planning permission for residential use
constituted an Article 8 interference in the Claimant’s occupation of
said historic building. 18.
The
Defendant has failed to have regard to an Inspector’s decision letter
confirming that a commercial use for historic building in question would
be inappropriate because of the location of the said historic building. 19.
The
Defendant has failed to have regard to a Survey conducted by experts as
to the archaeological importance attaching to
the said historic building, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. 20.
The
Defendant has failed to have regard to the recommendations of an expert
Report as to the action to be taken to secure a viable future for the
said historic building. 21.
Further, the Defendant has failed to arrange for alternative
independent expert evidence, to be in a position to refute said Survey
and Report such as to support their failure(s) to act in the matter(s),
which documentary evidence supersedes their own officer’s assessment
of said archaeological value contained in the structure of said historic
building, upon which in-house opinion the extant enforcement notice was
authorised.
If you wish to apply to the High Court for a Judicial Review, you will need to leave to apply on Form N461
You will also need to supply separately a:-
"Detailed Statement of Grounds" = The statute, common law, government guidance or precedent not taken into account by your local authority
"Detailed Statement of Facts" = Your story - the events as they occurred to cause the injustice
"Details of Remedy" = What you want the Court to do to put things right, an order quashing a decision, compensation, etc.
"Evidence you rely on" = Sufficient documents or other exhibits to show the Judge you have documentary support to qualify your application - as a numbered bundle.
THE LINKS TO THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS ARE GIVEN BY WAY OF EXAMPLE - BUT WERE PREPARED BY A LITIGANT IN PERSON, WITH NO PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE IN MAKING SUCH APPLICATIONS
Notes for guidance N461 Guidance Notes Witness Summons N20 Witness Summons Application for Urgent Consideration N463 URGENT Consideration
The Fee to make an application for leave is £30. A further fee of £100 is payable as and when your application for leave to apply is granted. It costs £30 to ask the Court to issue a Witness Summons.
THANKS: Lastly, I would again like to say to the growing number of affected members of the public who telephone or email me, that I am so very pleased if anything we have published can be used to further just decision making in this great country of ours. We just want to keep it great. The encouragement is mutual!
|