Islington Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 62 (Admin) (24 January 2014)

Islington Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 62 (Admin) (24 January 2014)

The inspector did not err in law by granting planning permission despite non-compliance with the strict vacancy and marketing requirements of DM 27, as he correctly interpreted the policy, acknowledged the conflict, and exercised planning judgment that the overall aims of the policy were satisfied based on evidence of lack of viability and lack of community value.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 62 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Islington Borough Council; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; 2nd Defendant: TGI Taverns
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Policy, Development Management Policies, Loss of Public Houses, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Planning Policy Development Management Policies Loss of Public Houses Judicial Review of Planning 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Islington Borough Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

1st Defendant

TGI Taverns

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector erred in law by granting planning permission contrary to the express requirements of draft policy DM 27 regarding vacancy and marketing evidence for public houses

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not err in law by granting planning permission despite non-compliance with the strict vacancy and marketing requirements of DM 27, as he correctly interpreted the policy, acknowledged the conflict, and exercised planning judgment that the overall aims of the policy were satisfied based on evidence of lack of viability and lack of community value.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash planning inspector's decision refused