Colman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government -& Ors

Colman v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government -& Ors

The Inspector lawfully concluded that relevant development plan policies were inconsistent with and/or outdated by the NPPF, correctly applied the presumption in favour of sustainable development, gave proper weight to all material considerations, and gave special regard to the setting of listed buildings as required by section 66(1). There was no legal error or irrationality in the Inspector’s approach or decision.

Parties
Claimant: Anita Colman; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: North Devon District Council; Third Defendant: RWE Npower Renewables Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Claim Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Consistency of Development Plan Policies With National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Renewable Energy Development, Landscape and Heritage Protection, Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Section 66 Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
Planning Law Administrative Law Consistency of Development Plan Policies With National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Renewable Energy Development Landscape and Heritage Protection Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Section 66 Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anita Colman

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

North Devon District Council

Second Defendant

RWE Npower Renewables Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Claim Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector correctly analysed the consistency between development plan policies and the NPPF
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector lawfully applied paragraph 14 of the NPPF
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector erred in relation to Policy CO2 (Exmoor National Park)

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector lawfully concluded that relevant development plan policies were inconsistent with and/or outdated by the NPPF, correctly applied the presumption in favour of sustainable development, gave proper weight to all material considerations, and gave special regard to the setting of listed buildings as required by section 66(1). There was no legal error or irrationality in the Inspector’s approach or decision.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to amend grounds to add section 66(1) argument refused
  • No quashing of the Inspector’s decision