Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities And Local Government & Anor [2019] EWHC 127 (Admin) (29 January 2019)

Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities And Local Government & Anor [2019] EWHC 127 (Admin) (29 January 2019)

The Inspector erred in law by failing to provide legally adequate reasons for departing from previous appeal decisions, particularly the Meppershall decision, on the status and weight of policy DM4. The Inspector did not properly apply the principle of consistency in decision-making and did not sufficiently address the reasoning regarding the inconsistency of DM4 with the National Planning Policy Framework. This failure constituted a material error requiring the decision to be quashed and remitted for redetermination.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 127 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Gladman Developments Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Central Bedfordshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Challenge to Planning Appeal Decision
Outcome
Decision quashed and remitted for redetermination
Legal Topics
Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, Consistency in Decision Making, Interpretation of Development Plan Policies, Application of National Planning Policy Framework, Weight to Be Given to Out of Date Policies
Planning Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Material Considerations in Planning Decisions Consistency in Decision Making Interpretation of Development Plan Policies Application of National Planning Policy Framework Weight to Be Given to Out of Date Policies

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gladman Developments Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Central Bedfordshire Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Challenge to Planning Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for departing from previous appeal decisions regarding policy DM4
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector properly applied the principle of consistency in decision-making as set out in North Wiltshire DC v Secretary of State for the Environment
  3. 3 Whether policy DM4 was out of date and the weight to be attached to it in light of the National Planning Policy Framework

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in law by failing to provide legally adequate reasons for departing from previous appeal decisions, particularly the Meppershall decision, on the status and weight of policy DM4. The Inspector did not properly apply the principle of consistency in decision-making and did not sufficiently address the reasoning regarding the inconsistency of DM4 with the National Planning Policy Framework. This failure constituted a material error requiring the decision to be quashed and remitted for redetermination.

Court Disposition

Decision quashed and remitted for redetermination

Orders

  • The Inspector's decision is quashed.
  • The matter is to be redetermined by a different Inspector.