Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF 2019 does not require decision-makers to disregard development plan policies in the 'tilted balance'; such policies remain relevant considerations. The Inspectors did not err in law by considering development plan policies or their consistency with the NPPF in the planning balance. The reasons given by the Inspectors were legally adequate, and no immaterial considerations were taken into account regarding socio-economic benefits.

Parties
Claimant: Gladman Developments Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant (co/3932/2019): Corby Borough Council; Second Defendant (co/4265/2019): Uttlesford District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Review of Planning Decisions / Ruling on Applications for Permission to Apply for Statutory Review
Outcome
Applications for permission to apply for statutory review refused.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Statutory Review Under S.288 TCPA 1990, Development Plan Policies, Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development, Planning Balance, Costs
Administrative Law Planning Law Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Statutory Review Under S.288 TCPA 1990 Development Plan Policies Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Planning Balance Costs

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gladman Developments Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Corby Borough Council

Second Defendant (co/3932/2019)

Uttlesford District Council

Second Defendant (co/4265/2019)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Review of Planning Decisions / Ruling on Applications for Permission to Apply for Statutory Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF requires decision-makers to disregard development plan policies in the 'tilted balance'
  2. 2 Whether Inspectors erred by considering consistency of development plan policies with the NPPF under paragraph 11(d)(ii)
  3. 3 Whether Inspectors gave adequate reasons for their decisions, particularly in assessing benefits and harms

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF 2019 does not require decision-makers to disregard development plan policies in the 'tilted balance'; such policies remain relevant considerations. The Inspectors did not err in law by considering development plan policies or their consistency with the NPPF in the planning balance. The reasons given by the Inspectors were legally adequate, and no immaterial considerations were taken into account regarding socio-economic benefits.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to apply for statutory review refused.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for statutory review in CO/3932/2019 and CO/4265/2019 refused.
  • Claimant to pay the costs of the First Defendant in both claims and the acknowledgment of service of Uttlesford District Council in CO/4265/2019.