Oxford Diocesan Board of Finance v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Oxford Diocesan Board of Finance v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Secretary of State's failure to consider the Ministerial Statement 'Planning for Growth' as a material consideration was an error of law, as it was not trivial and could have made a difference to the outcome. The other grounds of challenge failed as the Inspector and Secretary of State acted within their lawful discretion and provided adequate reasons.

Parties
Claimant: Oxford Diocesan Board of Finance; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Wokingham Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; decision quashed and remitted
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Material Considerations in Planning, Ministerial Statements, Supplementary Planning Documents, Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, Landscape and Settlement Identity, Adequacy of Reasons
Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review Material Considerations in Planning Ministerial Statements Supplementary Planning Documents Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations Landscape and Settlement Identity +1 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oxford Diocesan Board of Finance

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Wokingham Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State failed to consider the Ministerial Statement 'Planning for Growth' as a material consideration
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State erred in law by having regard to the draft South of the M4 Supplementary Planning Document and the adopted Infrastructure Delivery and Contributions Supplementary Planning Document
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State and Inspector failed to apply the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 correctly

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's failure to consider the Ministerial Statement 'Planning for Growth' as a material consideration was an error of law, as it was not trivial and could have made a difference to the outcome. The other grounds of challenge failed as the Inspector and Secretary of State acted within their lawful discretion and provided adequate reasons.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; decision quashed and remitted

Orders

  • The Secretary of State’s decision is quashed and remitted for reconsideration.