Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

Cotswold District Council v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

The Secretary of State lawfully interpreted and applied paragraph 47 of the Framework regarding 'persistent under delivery' of housing, was not required to consider the Kemble decision as it was not drawn to his attention, correctly applied other relevant planning policies, and the partial award of costs was a rational exercise of judgment. There was no unlawful failure to consider material considerations.

Parties
Applicant/claimant: Cotswold District Council; First Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent (highfield Case): Fay and Son Limited; Second Respondent/interested Party (berrells Road and Kemble Cases): Hannick Homes and Development Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Statutory Challenge (planning) / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Applications to quash the planning permissions and the claim for judicial review of the costs decision are dismissed. Permission to apply for judicial review on costs is granted but the claim is dismissed on the merits.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Planning Decisions, Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Material Considerations in Planning, Awards of Costs in Planning Appeals
Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review of Planning Decisions Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Material Considerations in Planning Awards of Costs in Planning Appeals

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cotswold District Council

Applicant/claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent/defendant

Fay and Son Limited

Second Respondent (highfield Case)

Hannick Homes and Development Limited

Second Respondent/interested Party (berrells Road and Kemble Cases)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Statutory Challenge (planning) / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State misconstrued paragraph 47 of the NPPF regarding 'persistent under delivery' of housing
  2. 2 Whether failure to consider the Kemble inspector's decision was unlawful
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State erred in his approach to other planning policies and evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State lawfully interpreted and applied paragraph 47 of the Framework regarding 'persistent under delivery' of housing, was not required to consider the Kemble decision as it was not drawn to his attention, correctly applied other relevant planning policies, and the partial award of costs was a rational exercise of judgment. There was no unlawful failure to consider material considerations.

Court Disposition

Applications to quash the planning permissions and the claim for judicial review of the costs decision are dismissed. Permission to apply for judicial review on costs is granted but the claim is dismissed on the merits.

Orders

  • Applications to quash the Highfield and Berrells Road planning permissions are dismissed.
  • Permission to apply for judicial review of the costs decision is granted but the claim is dismissed.