Ribble Valley Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & Anor [2021] EWHC 3092 (Admin) (16 November 2021)

Ribble Valley Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & Anor [2021] EWHC 3092 (Admin) (16 November 2021)

The inspector misinterpreted policy DMG2 by considering 'consolidation' for development outside the settlement boundary, contrary to the policy's requirement that such considerations only arise for development 'in' principal settlements. This misunderstanding of policy invalidated the decision.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3092 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Ribble Valley Borough Council; First Defendant: The Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Oakmere Homes (NW) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Section 288 Application (town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision
Outcome
application granted; inspector's decision quashed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Policy, Application of Local Development Plan, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Interpretation of Planning Policy Application of Local Development Plan 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ribble Valley Borough Council

Claimant

The Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Oakmere Homes (NW) Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Section 288 Application (town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Inspector's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector misinterpreted Core Strategy policy DMG2 in granting planning permission for development outside the settlement boundary
  2. 2 Whether the inspector's decision was a legitimate exercise of planning judgment or based on a misunderstanding of policy

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector misinterpreted policy DMG2 by considering 'consolidation' for development outside the settlement boundary, contrary to the policy's requirement that such considerations only arise for development 'in' principal settlements. This misunderstanding of policy invalidated the decision.

Court Disposition

application granted; inspector's decision quashed

Orders

  • The planning inspector's decision dated 10 November 2020 is quashed.