Amstel Group Corporation v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Amstel Group Corporation v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector erred by failing to weigh the public benefit of the proposed new primary school in the planning balance under NPPF 134, having excluded it entirely from consideration after finding it did not meet the statutory tests for planning obligations. This constituted a material error in law, warranting the quashing of the decision under section 288 TCPA 1990.

Parties
Claimant: Amstel Group Corporation; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: North Norfolk District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Final Judgment on Application Under Section 288 TCPA 1990
Outcome
Application granted on Ground 4; decision quashed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Heritage Assets, Community Infrastructure Levy, Section 106 Obligations, Sustainable Development
Planning Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Planning Permission Heritage Assets Community Infrastructure Levy Section 106 Obligations Sustainable Development

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amstel Group Corporation

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

North Norfolk District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Final Judgment on Application Under Section 288 TCPA 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to have regard to the public benefit of a proposed new primary school when dismissing the appeal against refusal of planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector misapplied the legal principles relating to designated heritage assets under NPPF 134 and PLBCAA 1990
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to properly consider sustainable development under the NPPF

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred by failing to weigh the public benefit of the proposed new primary school in the planning balance under NPPF 134, having excluded it entirely from consideration after finding it did not meet the statutory tests for planning obligations. This constituted a material error in law, warranting the quashing of the decision under section 288 TCPA 1990.

Court Disposition

Application granted on Ground 4; decision quashed.

Orders

  • The Inspector's decision dated 5 July 2017 is quashed.
  • Permission is refused on Grounds 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8.