Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin) (19 March 2014)

Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin) (19 March 2014)

The inspector did not err in law by failing to apply or explain the application of paragraph 14 of the NPPF, as the development plan was neither absent nor silent; the inspector's reasoning was adequate, he properly considered the five-year housing land supply, applied the correct policy on prematurity, and had regard to all relevant considerations. The inspector's decision was a lawful exercise of planning judgment within the statutory framework.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 754 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Bloor Homes East Midlands Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Plan Interpretation, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Housing Land Supply, Prematurity in Planning Applications, Green Wedge Policy, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Public Law Development Plan Interpretation National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Housing Land Supply Prematurity in Planning Applications Green Wedge Policy +1 more

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 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bloor Homes East Midlands Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector failed to apply or explain the application of paragraph 14 of the NPPF regarding 'absent' or 'silent' development plans
  2. 2 Whether the inspector misunderstood or inadequately reasoned the five-year housing land supply issue
  3. 3 Whether the inspector failed to apply or explain government policy on prematurity

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not err in law by failing to apply or explain the application of paragraph 14 of the NPPF, as the development plan was neither absent nor silent; the inspector's reasoning was adequate, he properly considered the five-year housing land supply, applied the correct policy on prematurity, and had regard to all relevant considerations. The inspector's decision was a lawful exercise of planning judgment within the statutory framework.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 refused
  • Inspector's decision to dismiss the appeal against refusal of planning permission upheld