Phides Estates (Overseas) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Phides Estates (Overseas) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The inspector lawfully interpreted and applied Policy SS2 of the Shepway Core Strategy, correctly distinguishing between requirement and target, and exercised proper planning judgment regarding which policies were for the supply of housing under NPPF paragraph 49. Her reasons were clear, adequate, and consistent with the evidence base and national policy. No error of law was established.

Parties
Claimant: Phides Estates (Overseas) Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Shepway District Council; Third Defendant: David Plumstead
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Policy, Housing Supply Requirements, Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Local Development Plan Policies
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Planning Policy Housing Supply Requirements Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Local Development Plan Policies

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phides Estates (Overseas) Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Shepway District Council

Second Defendant

David Plumstead

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector misunderstood and misapplied Policy SS2 of the Shepway Core Strategy and failed to identify the relevant housing requirements under paragraph 47 of the NPPF or failed to provide adequate reasons
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to identify the relevant policies for the supply of housing within paragraph 49 of the NPPF or reached inconsistent conclusions or failed to provide lawful reasons

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector lawfully interpreted and applied Policy SS2 of the Shepway Core Strategy, correctly distinguishing between requirement and target, and exercised proper planning judgment regarding which policies were for the supply of housing under NPPF paragraph 49. Her reasons were clear, adequate, and consistent with the evidence base and national policy. No error of law was established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed