William Davis Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Governments & Anor [2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin) (11 October 2013)

William Davis Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Governments & Anor [2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin) (11 October 2013)

The Secretary of State and Inspector lawfully interpreted and applied the NPPF and relevant development plan policies. Their conclusions that the proposed development was not sustainable, that Policy E20 was not out-of-date or inconsistent with the NPPF, and that prematurity and air quality were valid...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3058 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: William Davis Limited; Claimant: Jelson Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Governments; Second Defendant: North West Leicestershire District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 TCPA 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Development Plan Policies, Prematurity in Planning Decisions, Air Quality and Planning, Material Considerations in Planning, Consistency in Decision Making
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Judicial Review Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Development Plan Policies Prematurity in Planning Decisions Air Quality and Planning +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Davis Limited

Claimant

Jelson Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Governments

First Defendant

North West Leicestershire District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 TCPA 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State and Inspector misinterpreted and/or misapplied the NPPF, particularly the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the treatment of Policy E20
  2. 2 Whether Policy E20 was out-of-date or inconsistent with the NPPF
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State acted inconsistently with previous decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State and Inspector lawfully interpreted and applied the NPPF and relevant development plan policies. Their conclusions that the proposed development was not sustainable, that Policy E20 was not out-of-date or inconsistent with the NPPF, and that prematurity and air quality were valid considerations, were legitimate planning judgments. No error of law or irrationality was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash the Secretary of State's decision refused
  • No error of law found in the planning decision