Hulme, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

Hulme, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

The court held that the planning conditions, though not models of clarity, were enforceable and adequate when read in context; the inspector gave sufficient reasons for his decisions, including any departures from policy; a precautionary approach was adopted through conditions; alternatives were considered proportionately; development plan policies were correctly applied; visual impacts were properly assessed; the inspector substantially complied with the Habitats Regulations; and the balancing exercise under PPS22 was lawfully conducted. All grounds of challenge failed.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen on the Application of Hulme; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Third Defendant: RES (Renewable Energy Systems)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Permission Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Renewable Energy, Noise Regulation, Habitats Directive, Protected Species, Statutory Interpretation, Conditions of Planning Permission
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Judicial Review Planning Permission Renewable Energy Noise Regulation Habitats Directive +3 more

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 7 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen on the Application of Hulme

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

RES (Renewable Energy Systems)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Permission Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning conditions imposed to regulate amplitude modulation (AM) noise were enforceable and adequate
  2. 2 Whether the inspector lawfully departed from national policy and guidance on noise assessment (PPS22, ETSU-R-97)
  3. 3 Whether the inspector failed to adopt a precautionary approach to noise uncertainties

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the planning conditions, though not models of clarity, were enforceable and adequate when read in context; the inspector gave sufficient reasons for his decisions, including any departures from policy; a precautionary approach was adopted through conditions; alternatives were considered proportionately; development plan policies were correctly applied; visual impacts were properly assessed; the inspector substantially complied with the Habitats Regulations; and the balancing exercise under PPS22 was lawfully conducted. All grounds of challenge failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay first defendant's costs, assessed if not agreed, limited to a maximum of £5,000.
  • Permission to appeal refused.