Linden Developments Ltd. v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2002] EWCA Civ 1737 (27 November 2002)

Linden Developments Ltd. v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2002] EWCA Civ 1737 (27 November 2002)

The inspector did not misinterpret or ignore the objectives of DEV 17. The policy permitted employment development only if all criteria, including traffic and strategic gap considerations, were satisfied. The inspector's reasons were legally adequate, focused on the specific proposal, and did not preclude all development under DEV 17. The judge below erred in holding otherwise. The appeal is allowed and the inspector's decision stands.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1737
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Linden Developments Limited; Appellant/defendant: Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Planning Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Policy, Development Plan Criteria, Adequacy of Reasons in Planning Decisions, Material Error of Fact, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Planning Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Interpretation of Planning Policy Development Plan Criteria Adequacy of Reasons in Planning Decisions Material Error of Fact Wednesbury Unreasonableness

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linden Developments Limited

Claimant/respondent

Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Planning Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector misunderstood or misapplied Policy DEV 17 in refusing planning permission for employment development at Clark's Farm, Darby Green
  2. 2 Whether the inspector's reasons for refusal on traffic grounds were legally adequate and consistent with the objectives of DEV 17
  3. 3 Whether the inspector failed to give adequate reasons or made a material error of fact

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not misinterpret or ignore the objectives of DEV 17. The policy permitted employment development only if all criteria, including traffic and strategic gap considerations, were satisfied. The inspector's reasons were legally adequate, focused on the specific proposal, and did not preclude all development under DEV 17. The judge below erred in holding otherwise. The appeal is allowed and the inspector's decision stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Inspector's decision refusing planning permission reinstated
  • Order of Ouseley J quashing the inspector's decision set aside