Re G (Abduction: children's objections)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Ward |
| Judgment Date | 29 September 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWCA Civ 1232 |
| Date | 29 September 2011 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: C1/2011/1023 |
[2011] EWCA Civ 1232
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
(MR JUSTICE LANGSTAFF)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Ward
Case No: C1/2011/1023
and
Mr John Hunter (instructed by Glassbrooks Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Blackpool Borough Council) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
The Interested Party did not attend and was not represented.
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal the dismissal by Langstaff J of the proceedings for judicial review relating to the Blackpool Council's decision to grant planning permission for a large development of housing on an area of Blackpool, the Moss House Road development. When the matter came before the planning committee, there were on the face of it two conflicting policies. The first was the Blackpool local plan, which set aside the land at Marton Moss as an area which should not be developed; it was an area of a special rural character, and housing should not ordinarily be permitted upon it. That plan was made in June 2006. Subsequently the regional special strategy did propose much more housing development in the Blackpool area, and so there was a conflict between these two. In the event, planning permission was granted. But then there was the change of government and the coalition announced that these regional strategies would be abolished, and so the applicant in this application for permission invited the council to review their decision. They did not do so and hence the judicial review.
The judge refused the application and held that the proposed abolition of this regional strategy would have made no practical difference to the outcome of the decision. Mr Hunter, who appears for the applicant today, points out however that far from the local authority regarding the regional strategy as of biblical significance, in an email of 19 July 2010 of one of their officers, Mr Graham Page (this email appearing on page 78 in the top right-hand...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re KP (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody)
...After I had raised the question of seeing K Mr Devereux referred me to Re G (Abduction) (Children's Objections) [2010] EWCA Civ 1232, [2011] 1 FLR 1645, repeated in Re J (Abduction) (Children's Objections) [2011] EWCA Civ 1448, [2012] 1 FLR 457 that the Judge needs to assess where a return......
-
Re F (Children)
...denying the child knowledge of and participation in the continuing proceedings." Thorpe LJ returned to the same theme in Re G (Abduction: Children's Objections) [2010] EWCA Civ 1232, [2011] 1 FLR 1645, para 15, a case where (see paras 20–21) Thorpe and Smith LJJ themselves met the child, a......
-
Z v Y
...After I had raised the question of seeing A Mr Devereux referred me to Re G (Abduction) (Children's Objections) [2010] EWCA Civ 1232, [2011] 1 FLR 1645, repeated in Re J (Abduction) (Children's Objections) [2011] EWCA Civ 1448, [2012] 1 FLR 457 that the Judge needs to assess where a return......
-
Re J (Abduction: Children's Objections)
...(Abduction) [2007] 2FLR 900 and DeL v H [2010] 1FLR 1229. 34 Also for the Judge's guidance there was the reported case of re G (Abduction:Children's Objections) [2011] 1FLR 1645. I only emphasise what I said at paragraph 15 of my judgment:- "There is, in this branch of international fami......