Canterbury City Council v SSCLG & Anor [2018] EWHC 1611 (Admin) (26 June 2018)

Canterbury City Council v SSCLG & Anor [2018] EWHC 1611 (Admin) (26 June 2018)

The Inspector did not err in law in his interpretation of policies H1 and H9 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2006. Policy H1 is permissive and does not contain an implicit negative corollary precluding development outside specified areas. Policy H9 is permissive and sets out relevant considerations rather than prohibitions. The Inspector lawfully applied section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and there was no conflict with the development plan or error in the planning balance. The challenge is dismissed.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1611 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Canterbury City Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (SSCLG); Second Defendant: Gladman Developments Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Policy, Development Plan Compliance, Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Interpretation of Planning Policy Development Plan Compliance Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canterbury City Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (SSCLG)

First Defendant

Gladman Developments Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector misinterpreted policies H1 and H9 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2006
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's interpretation of policy H9 was advanced by the parties and was correct in substance
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector lawfully applied section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in granting planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law in his interpretation of policies H1 and H9 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2006. Policy H1 is permissive and does not contain an implicit negative corollary precluding development outside specified areas. Policy H9 is permissive and sets out relevant considerations rather than prohibitions. The Inspector lawfully applied section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and there was no conflict with the development plan or error in the planning balance. The challenge is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review is dismissed.
  • Planning permission granted by the Inspector stands.