Canterbury City Council v SSCLG & Anor

Canterbury City Council v SSCLG & Anor

The Inspector erred in law by misinterpreting Local Plan policies H1 and H9 as silent regarding housing outside specified locations, failing to recognise that proposals outside those locations conflicted with the plan. This led to a failure to properly apply section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Inspector's decision was unlawful and must be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Canterbury City Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Gladman Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Final Judgment and Order
Outcome
Claimant's application allowed; Inspector's decision quashed; appeal remitted for redetermination.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Policy, Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Section 70 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Local Plan Policy Interpretation, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Administrative Law Planning Law Interpretation of Planning Policy Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Section 70 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Local Plan Policy Interpretation 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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canterbury City Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Gladman Developments Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Final Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector misinterpreted Local Plan policies H1 and H9
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector misapplied section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector correctly interpreted draft policy SP4

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in law by misinterpreting Local Plan policies H1 and H9 as silent regarding housing outside specified locations, failing to recognise that proposals outside those locations conflicted with the plan. This led to a failure to properly apply section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Inspector's decision was unlawful and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application allowed; Inspector's decision quashed; appeal remitted for redetermination.

Orders

  • Inspector’s decision of 11 July 2017 is quashed.
  • Second Defendant’s appeal remitted to Secretary of State for redetermination by a different Inspector.