Paul Newman New Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & Anor [2019] EWHC 2367 (Admin) (06 September 2019)

Paul Newman New Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & Anor [2019] EWHC 2367 (Admin) (06 September 2019)

The Inspector did not err in law; paragraph 11d of the 2018 Framework is to be interpreted on its own terms, and the existence of a single relevant development plan policy (GP.35) suffices to block the 'tilted balance'. GP.35 is relevant to outline applications and was breached by the proposed development, justifying dismissal of the appeal.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2367 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Paul Newman New Homes Ltd; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Aylesbury Vale District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law – Planning Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework, Application of 'tilted Balance', Relevance and Up to Dateness of Development Plan Policies, Outline Planning Permission, Policy Gp.35
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework Application of 'tilted Balance' Relevance and Up to Dateness of Development Plan Policies Outline Planning Permission Policy Gp.35

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Newman New Homes Ltd

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Aylesbury Vale District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law – Planning Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector misinterpreted paragraph 11d of the 2018 National Planning Policy Framework regarding triggers for the 'tilted balance'
  2. 2 Whether Policy GP.35 was relevant and breached in the determination of outline planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law; paragraph 11d of the 2018 Framework is to be interpreted on its own terms, and the existence of a single relevant development plan policy (GP.35) suffices to block the 'tilted balance'. GP.35 is relevant to outline applications and was breached by the proposed development, justifying dismissal of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed