Cheshire East Council v Secretary of State for Housing Communities & Local Government & Anor

Cheshire East Council v Secretary of State for Housing Communities & Local Government & Anor

The inspectors did not err in law; they exercised planning judgment in concluding that the Council had not demonstrated a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, justifying application of the tilted balance. Their approach to evidence and reasons was consistent with the NPPF and relevant legal principles. The claim is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Cheshire East Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing Communities & Local Government; Second Defendant: Graham Kirkham; Second Defendant: Angela Mary Kirkham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town & Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Five Year Housing Land Supply, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions, Interpretation of Planning Policy, Adequacy of Reasons in Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Five Year Housing Land Supply National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Judicial Review of Planning Decisions Interpretation of Planning 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheshire East Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing Communities & Local Government

First Defendant

Graham Kirkham

Second Defendant

Angela Mary Kirkham

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector misapplied or misunderstood paragraph 47 of the NPPF regarding the five year deliverable housing supply requirement
  2. 2 Whether the inspector erred in law by applying the 'tilted balance' on a precautionary basis
  3. 3 Whether the inspector wrongly required 'robust, up to date evidence' for all sites, including those with planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The inspectors did not err in law; they exercised planning judgment in concluding that the Council had not demonstrated a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, justifying application of the tilted balance. Their approach to evidence and reasons was consistent with the NPPF and relevant legal principles. The claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed