Islington Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

Islington Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

The inspector did not err in law by granting planning permission despite non-compliance with the strict requirements of DM 27, as he correctly interpreted the policy, acknowledged the conflict, and exercised planning judgment in concluding the overall aim of the policy was satisfied based on the evidence.

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 / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Policy, Development Management Policies, Statutory Appeals Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Planning Policy Development Management Policies Statutory Appeals Under Town and Country Planning Act 1990

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 / Judgment

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
  2. 2 Whether the inspector's interpretation and application of DM 27 was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not err in law by granting planning permission despite non-compliance with the strict requirements of DM 27, as he correctly interpreted the policy, acknowledged the conflict, and exercised planning judgment in concluding the overall aim of the policy was satisfied based on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash the inspector’s decision is refused