Monkhill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government [2019] EWHC 1993 (Admin) (24 July 2019)

Monkhill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government [2019] EWHC 1993 (Admin) (24 July 2019)

The first part of paragraph 172 of the NPPF qualifies as a policy to be applied under limb (i) of paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF and is capable of sustaining a clear reason for refusal. There is no legal requirement that a policy must contain a self-contained balancing exercise to qualify under paragraph 11(d)(i); the practical application of the policy and the planning judgment of the decision-maker suffice.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1993 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Monkhill Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Waverley Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (aonb), Paragraph 11(d) NPPF, Paragraph 172 NPPF, Development Control, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Public Law Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (aonb) Paragraph 11(d) NPPF Paragraph 172 NPPF +2 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monkhill Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Waverley Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first part of paragraph 172 of the NPPF qualifies as a policy to be applied under limb (i) of paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in law by treating the first part of paragraph 172 as providing a clear reason for refusal under paragraph 11(d)(i)
  3. 3 Whether a policy must contain a self-contained balancing exercise to qualify under paragraph 11(d)(i)

Ratio Decidendi

The first part of paragraph 172 of the NPPF qualifies as a policy to be applied under limb (i) of paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF and is capable of sustaining a clear reason for refusal. There is no legal requirement that a policy must contain a self-contained balancing exercise to qualify under paragraph 11(d)(i); the practical application of the policy and the planning judgment of the decision-maker suffice.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review dismissed
  • No quashing of the Inspector's decision