Unicoin (Dartford) Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Unicoin (Dartford) Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector did not err in law by relying on the PADHI methodology and the envelope of risks represented by the hazardous substances consents. The Inspector was not required to apply a tolerability test or base her assessment solely on the specific chemicals notified under COMAH. The Inspector gave adequate reasons, acted rationally, and properly weighed the evidence and regulatory context. The application is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Unicoin (Dartford) Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Dartford Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Land Use Planning, Hazardous Substances Consent, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Residual Risk Assessment
Planning Law Administrative Law Health and Safety Law Land Use Planning Hazardous Substances Consent Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Residual Risk Assessment

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unicoin (Dartford) Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Dartford Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in her approach to risk assessment for residential development near a hazardous installation
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to apply the correct test under Circular 04/00 and relevant regulations
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector gave adequate reasons and acted rationally in her decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law by relying on the PADHI methodology and the envelope of risks represented by the hazardous substances consents. The Inspector was not required to apply a tolerability test or base her assessment solely on the specific chemicals notified under COMAH. The Inspector gave adequate reasons, acted rationally, and properly weighed the evidence and regulatory context. The application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed
  • Claimant to pay First Defendant's costs, summarily assessed at £10,520