Starbones Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

Starbones Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Secretary of State lawfully considered the relevant planning policies, the impact of alternative developments, and the status of the emerging plan, gave adequate reasons for his decision, and exercised his planning judgment within the bounds of legality; therefore, the claim to quash the decision fails.

Parties
Claimant: Starbones Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: London Borough of Hounslow; Third Defendant: Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 TCPA 1990) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Planning Decisions, Heritage Asset Protection, Interpretation of Planning Policy, Emerging Development Plans, Statutory Duty to Give Reasons
Planning and Environment Law Administrative Law Judicial Review of Planning Decisions Heritage Asset Protection Interpretation of Planning Policy Emerging Development Plans Statutory Duty to Give Reasons

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Starbones Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

London Borough of Hounslow

Second Defendant

Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 TCPA 1990) / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State failed to have regard to the relative impact on heritage assets of alternative developments (the Citadel or policy-compliant schemes)
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to properly apply paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework regarding emerging plans
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State gave adequate reasons for disagreeing with the Inspector's recommendation

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State lawfully considered the relevant planning policies, the impact of alternative developments, and the status of the emerging plan, gave adequate reasons for his decision, and exercised his planning judgment within the bounds of legality; therefore, the claim to quash the decision fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed