Thomas Bates & Son Ltd., R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions & Anor

Thomas Bates & Son Ltd., R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions & Anor

The inspector correctly interpreted and applied the sequential test in PPG 25 by prioritising sites in lower flood risk zones without considering actual flood defences, as required by the policy. However, the inspector erred by failing to take into account the actual flood risk and the protection afforded to the appeal site, as well as relevant comparative evidence, when considering other material aspects of the planning decision outside the sequential test.

Parties
Claimant: Thomas Bates & Son Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; Second Defendant: Maldon District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Application allowed; inspector's decision quashed
Legal Topics
Flood Risk Assessment, Sequential Test Under PPG 25, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions, Interpretation of Planning Policy
Planning Law Administrative Law Flood Risk Assessment Sequential Test Under PPG 25 Judicial Review of Planning Decisions Interpretation of Planning Policy

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

Parties

Thomas Bates & Son Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

First Defendant

Maldon District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation and application of the sequential test in PPG 25 for flood risk
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to take into account actual flood risk and relevant evidence
  3. 3 Whether the inspector properly compared reasonable alternative sites

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector correctly interpreted and applied the sequential test in PPG 25 by prioritising sites in lower flood risk zones without considering actual flood defences, as required by the policy. However, the inspector erred by failing to take into account the actual flood risk and the protection afforded to the appeal site, as well as relevant comparative evidence, when considering other material aspects of the planning decision outside the sequential test.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; inspector's decision quashed

Orders

  • The decision of the planning inspector dated 30 January 2004 is quashed.
  • First respondent to pay claimant's costs, save in relation to the issue of the interpretation of PPG 25, with costs to be assessed if not agreed.