Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Inspector properly engaged with the relevant legal principles, considered the effectiveness of mitigation measures, was not obliged to presume imminent compliance or impose conditions not suggested, and gave appropriate weight to the emerging development plan; therefore, none of the grounds of claim succeed.

Parties
Claimant: Gladman Developments Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Swale Borough Council; Interested Party: Campaign to Protect Rural England (Kent Branch)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Air Quality, Planning Permission, Mitigation Measures, Directive Compliance, Local Development Plans
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Air Quality Planning Permission Mitigation Measures Directive Compliance Local Development Plans

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gladman Developments Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Swale Borough Council

Second Defendant

Campaign to Protect Rural England (Kent Branch)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to properly apply the outcome of Client Earth (No.2) regarding air quality action plans
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to presume regulatory schemes are legally effective
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to explain why DEFRA damage cost analysis was not likely to be effective

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector properly engaged with the relevant legal principles, considered the effectiveness of mitigation measures, was not obliged to presume imminent compliance or impose conditions not suggested, and gave appropriate weight to the emerging development plan; therefore, none of the grounds of claim succeed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed