- Cited — Persimmon Homes (Thames Valley) Limited v Worthing Borough Council 2023-06-30
“…g judgment. Nor will it look for perfection in his reasons (see the speech of Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1953, at paragraph 36, the speech of Lord Bridge of Harwich in Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd. [1991] 1 W.L.R. 153, and the leading judgment in this…”
- Cited — Save Britain’s Heritage, R (on the application of) v Herefordshire Council 2023-06-23
“…7] UKSC 79; [2018] 1 W.L.R. 108, at paragraphs 35 to 42, citing the speech of Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1953, at paragraph 36, and the judgment of Sir Thomas Bingham M.R., as he then was, in Clarke Homes Ltd. v Secretary of State for the Environment [2017] PTSR 1081, …”
- Explained — East Quayside 12 LLP v The Council of the City of Newcastle Upon Tyne 2023-03-31
“…was “inadequate in the sense explained in [Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd. [1991] 1 W.L.R. 153 and South Bucks District Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1953]”. The level of harm to the significance of the listed building was a “principal important controversial issue”. Neither the Secretary of State nor East Quaysi…”
- Cited — City & Country Bramshill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Ors 2021-03-09
“…h the evidence and submissions in the case (see the speech of Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] UKHL 33, [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1953, at paragraph 36). It will not expect every piece of evidence, every concession made in cross-examination, and every submission of counsel to be mentioned. Tha…”
- Cited — Hook v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor (Rev 1) 2020-04-03
“… his decision on the appeal; it was “not a “principal important controversial issue” (per Lord Brown in [South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1953, at paragraph 36)”. It was also unarguable that there was any procedural unfairness. The potential relevance of draft condition 4 was discussed at the hearing,…”
- Cited — Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors 2019-09-12
“…nd intelligible – in accordance with the principles stated by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] UKHL 33, [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1953 (at paragraph 36) – one must read the decision letter fairly as a whole, bearing in mind that it is written, principally, for the parties to the appeal, who wi…”
- Cited — Hallam Land Management Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor 2018-07-31
“…[2004] 1 W.L.R. 1953, at paragraph 36). In the circumstances it was not enough for him simply to refer to the shortfall as “limited”, without more.…”
- Cited — Tate, R (on the application of) v Leffers-Smith 2018-06-29
“…tended for by the county council was contrary to the principles recognized by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1953 (in paragraph 36 of his speech). Its “reasoning will be a matter of importance in the context of any future applications for other development within Tranwell …”
- Cited — Lancashire County Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Anor 2018-04-12
“…he concluded – again in the light of familiar authority, including the decision of the House of Lords in South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1953 (in particular the speech of Lord Brown in paragraphs 24 to 36) – that “in a [2006 Act] case the standard must be that the losing party knows why they lost and…”