Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor [2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin) (27 November 2013)

Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor [2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin) (27 November 2013)

The Secretary of State and inspector correctly interpreted and applied paragraph 47 of the NPPF regarding 'persistent under delivery' by considering multiple timeframes and the context of housing need, were not required to follow or expressly address the Kemble decision, and acted lawfully and rationally in awarding partial costs against the Council for unreasonably relying on outdated housing figures.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Cotswold District Council; First Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent (first Case): Fay and Son Limited; Second Respondent/interested Party (second Case): Hannick Homes and Development Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/statutory Challenge (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Housing Land Supply, Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, Costs in Planning Appeals, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (aonb)
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Housing Land Supply Material Considerations in Planning Decisions Costs in Planning Appeals Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (aonb)

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cotswold District Council

Applicant/claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent/defendant

Fay and Son Limited

Second Respondent (first Case)

Hannick Homes and Development Limited

Second Respondent/interested Party (second Case)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/statutory Challenge (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of 'persistent under delivery' in paragraph 47 of the NPPF
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to have regard to a material consideration (Kemble decision)
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State erred in approach to planning policy and evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State and inspector correctly interpreted and applied paragraph 47 of the NPPF regarding 'persistent under delivery' by considering multiple timeframes and the context of housing need, were not required to follow or expressly address the Kemble decision, and acted lawfully and rationally in awarding partial costs against the Council for unreasonably relying on outdated housing figures.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Applications to quash planning permissions refused
  • Application for judicial review of partial costs award refused