Aston & Anor vThe Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors

Aston & Anor vThe Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors

The screening opinion was not unlawful; the Inspector exercised planning judgment properly and considered material factors; there was no breach of development plan policies or procedural unfairness; the development did not constitute 'major development' under NPPF; all grounds of challenge failed.

Parties
Claimant: Deborah Jane Aston; Claimant: Westcott Meadow Action Group Ltd; First Defendant: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Mole Valley District Council; Third Defendant: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Development Plan Compliance, Prematurity, Sustainability, Procedural Fairness, Major Development Definition
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment Development Plan Compliance Prematurity Sustainability Procedural Fairness +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deborah Jane Aston

Claimant

Westcott Meadow Action Group Ltd

Claimant

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Mole Valley District Council

Second Defendant

Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Lawfulness of screening opinion under EIA Regulations
  2. 2 Compliance with development plan policies CS1 and CS2
  3. 3 Prematurity and sustainability of planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The screening opinion was not unlawful; the Inspector exercised planning judgment properly and considered material factors; there was no breach of development plan policies or procedural unfairness; the development did not constitute 'major development' under NPPF; all grounds of challenge failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed