Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

The Inspector did not err in law by taking into account the out-of-datedness of the spatial strategy policies when determining whether the proposal accorded with the development plan as a whole under s.38(6) PCPA 2004. The Inspector's approach was consistent with established legal principles and the structure of the development plan, and the challenge fails both on the merits and, even if there had been an error, the outcome would inevitably have been the same.

Parties
Claimant: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; 2nd Defendant: Bewley Homes plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Statutory Planning Judicial Review (s.288 TCPA 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Plan Interpretation, Out of Date Policies, Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Material Considerations in Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Development Plan Interpretation Out of Date Policies Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Material Considerations in Planning Decisions

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 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

1st Defendant

Bewley Homes plc

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Planning Judicial Review (s.288 TCPA 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by taking into account the out-of-datedness of spatial strategy policies when deciding if the proposal accorded with the development plan as a whole under s.38(6) PCPA 2004

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law by taking into account the out-of-datedness of the spatial strategy policies when determining whether the proposal accorded with the development plan as a whole under s.38(6) PCPA 2004. The Inspector's approach was consistent with established legal principles and the structure of the development plan, and the challenge fails both on the merits and, even if there had been an error, the outcome would inevitably have been the same.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Statutory review claim dismissed
  • No error of law found in the Inspector's decision