London Borough of Bromley, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State for Transport

London Borough of Bromley, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State for Transport

The Secretaries of State did not err in law in granting planning permission, as they gave adequate reasons, properly considered both present and future availability of alternative sites, and were entitled to refuse a personal occupancy condition. The decision was a matter of planning judgment, and no material consideration was ignored.

Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Bromley; 1st Defendant: First Secretary of State; 2nd Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport; 3rd Defendant: Biggin Hill Airport Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Permission
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Development, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Alternative Site Assessment, Personal Planning Conditions, Costs, Leave to Appeal
Planning Law Administrative Law Green Belt Development Planning Permission Judicial Review Alternative Site Assessment Personal Planning Conditions Costs +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Bromley

Claimant

First Secretary of State

1st Defendant

Secretary of State for Transport

2nd Defendant

Biggin Hill Airport Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretaries of State erred in granting planning permission for inappropriate development in the Green Belt by failing to properly consider alternative sites and future availability.
  2. 2 Whether the Secretaries of State failed to give adequate reasons for their decision, particularly regarding the weight given to present versus future availability of alternative sites.
  3. 3 Whether the Secretaries of State erred in refusing to impose a personal condition limiting occupation of the hangar to Jet Aviation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretaries of State did not err in law in granting planning permission, as they gave adequate reasons, properly considered both present and future availability of alternative sites, and were entitled to refuse a personal occupancy condition. The decision was a matter of planning judgment, and no material consideration was ignored.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash planning permission refused
  • Costs summarily assessed at £5,500 in favour of the Defendants