Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2020] EWHC 518 (Admin) (06 March 2020)

Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2020] EWHC 518 (Admin) (06 March 2020)

Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF does not require the exclusion of development plan policies from the tilted balance assessment. Decision-makers are entitled and required to consider relevant development plan policies, including those deemed out-of-date, when applying the tilted balance. The Inspectors' approach in both appeals was lawful and consistent with the statutory framework and established case law.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 518 (Admin)
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 (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Paragraph 11(d)(ii), Application of 'tilted Balance' in Planning Decisions, Interaction Between NPPF and Statutory Development Plan (s.38(6) PCPA 2004), Judicial Review of Planning Inspector Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Paragraph 11(d)(ii) Application of 'tilted Balance' in Planning Decisions Interaction Between NPPF and Statutory Development Plan (s.38(6) PCPA 2004) Judicial Review of Planning Inspector Decisions

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 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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 (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF does not require the exclusion of development plan policies from the tilted balance assessment. Decision-makers are entitled and required to consider relevant development plan policies, including those deemed out-of-date, when applying the tilted balance. The Inspectors' approach in both appeals was lawful and consistent with the statutory framework and established case law.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • The challenges to the Inspectors' decisions are dismissed.
  • No quashing of the appeal decisions.