Britaniacrest Recycling Ltd v Surrey County Council

Britaniacrest Recycling Ltd v Surrey County Council

The Inspector did not err in law in her interpretation or application of Policy CW6; she was entitled to consider all relevant factors, including the availability of non-Green Belt sites and proximity to waste arisings, even for an existing waste facility. She did not require all four CW6 factors to be met, considered the characteristics of the site, and gave adequate reasons for her decision. The application was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Britaniacrest Recycling Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Surrey County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Waste Management Facilities, Interpretation of Development Plan Policy, Very Special Circumstances, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Green Belt Policy Waste Management Facilities Interpretation of Development Plan Policy Very Special Circumstances Judicial Review of Planning Decisions

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Britaniacrest Recycling Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Surrey County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in interpreting and applying Surrey Waste Plan Policy CW6 regarding 'very special circumstances' for inappropriate development in the Green Belt
  2. 2 Whether all four CW6 factors must be demonstrated
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector wrongly considered or failed to consider relevant factors under CW6

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law in her interpretation or application of Policy CW6; she was entitled to consider all relevant factors, including the availability of non-Green Belt sites and proximity to waste arisings, even for an existing waste facility. She did not require all four CW6 factors to be met, considered the characteristics of the site, and gave adequate reasons for her decision. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Claimant to pay Secretary of State's costs assessed at £6,553