Gill v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2015] EWHC 2660 (Admin) (25 September 2015)

Gill v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2015] EWHC 2660 (Admin) (25 September 2015)

The Inspector's decision was lawful; he implicitly found the proposal was not in accordance with the development plan, correctly applied NPPF Green Belt policy, made rational planning judgments, and was not required to address the previous appeal decision as it was not materially similar.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2660 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Raymond Gill; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Central Bedfordshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Section 288 TCPA 1990 Claim
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Development Plan Compliance, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Section 288 TCPA 1990 Challenges, Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Consistency in Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Green Belt Policy Development Plan Compliance National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Section 288 TCPA 1990 Challenges Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 +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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Gill

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Central Bedfordshire Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Section 288 TCPA 1990 Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to comply with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector misapplied or misinterpreted the NPPF Green Belt policy
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's conclusions were irrational or unsupported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's decision was lawful; he implicitly found the proposal was not in accordance with the development plan, correctly applied NPPF Green Belt policy, made rational planning judgments, and was not required to address the previous appeal decision as it was not materially similar.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed