Cawrey Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 1198 (Admin) (23 May 2016)

Cawrey Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 1198 (Admin) (23 May 2016)

The Inspector's decision was lawful; he provided adequate reasons for landscape impact, properly considered conflict with development plan policies, and was entitled to give full weight to RES5 and NE5 given the existence of a five-year housing land supply. The scheme conflicted with the development plan as a whole, and the harm to the landscape outweighed the benefits of housing provision. The Inspector's reasoning met legal requirements and did not misapply NPPF.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1198 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Cawrey Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (s.288 TCPA 1990) / Final Judgment
Legal Topics
Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework, Development Plan Compliance, Landscape Impact, Housing Supply, Sustainable Development
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework Development Plan Compliance Landscape Impact Housing Supply Sustainable Development

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cawrey Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (s.288 TCPA 1990) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to provide adequate reasons regarding landscape impact
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector properly considered conflict with development plan policies RES5 and NE5
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector properly applied the presumption in favour of sustainable development under NPPF

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's decision was lawful; he provided adequate reasons for landscape impact, properly considered conflict with development plan policies, and was entitled to give full weight to RES5 and NE5 given the existence of a five-year housing land supply. The scheme conflicted with the development plan as a whole, and the harm to the landscape outweighed the benefits of housing provision. The Inspector's reasoning met legal requirements and did not misapply NPPF.