FCC Environment v (1) Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government (2) East Riding of Yorkshire Council

FCC Environment v (1) Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government (2) East Riding of Yorkshire Council

The Inspector did not fail to take into account a material consideration, did not misunderstand law or policy, provided adequate reasoning for findings on landscape and appearance, and relied on both defence and landscape impacts in concluding the development was not sustainable; the application fails on all grounds.

Parties
Claimant: FCC Environment; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Grampian Conditions, Material Considerations, Planning Permission, Sustainable Development, Landscape and Visual Impact, Defence and Radar Safety

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FCC Environment

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to take into account a material consideration (ODPM letter)
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector misunderstood fact, law or policy relating to Grampian conditions
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector provided adequate reasoning for moderate adverse effect on landscape and appearance

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not fail to take into account a material consideration, did not misunderstand law or policy, provided adequate reasoning for findings on landscape and appearance, and relied on both defence and landscape impacts in concluding the development was not sustainable; the application fails on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed