Bovale Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Bovale Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The inspector was entitled to consider whether the need for the proposed facility could be met on alternative sites, given the conflict with the development plan regarding employment land and affordable housing. There was no procedural unfairness, and the inspector's planning judgment on viability and need was not irrational or inadequately reasoned.

Parties
Claimant: Bovale Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Hereford Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Plan, Affordable Housing, Employment Land, Alternative Sites, Planning Permission
Planning Law Administrative Law Development Plan Affordable Housing Employment Land Alternative Sites Planning Permission

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bovale Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Hereford Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in law in considering alternative sites as a material consideration
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to properly consider the need for the facility
  3. 3 Whether the inspector failed to properly assess the viability of employment use

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled to consider whether the need for the proposed facility could be met on alternative sites, given the conflict with the development plan regarding employment land and affordable housing. There was no procedural unfairness, and the inspector's planning judgment on viability and need was not irrational or inadequately reasoned.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Claimant to pay the first defendant's costs, summarily assessed at £8,500