St Albans City and District Council v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors

St Albans City and District Council v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors

The Secretary of State did not fetter discretion by imposing a legal test; the approach taken was a matter of judgment and weight, not law. The Veolia decision was not sufficiently closely related to Helioslough's appeal to be a material consideration, and thus no procedural unfairness or legitimate expectation arose. The Second Defendant is entitled only to costs for the second witness statement, not for broader representation.

Parties
Claimant: St Albans City and District Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Helioslough Limited; Third Defendant: Hertfordshire County Council; Fourth Defendant: Goodman Logistics Development (UK) Limited; Interested Party: STRiFE Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, Consistency in Decision Making, Green Belt Policy, Procedural Fairness, Costs in Judicial Review
Administrative Law Planning Law Material Considerations in Planning Decisions Consistency in Decision Making Green Belt Policy Procedural Fairness Costs in Judicial Review

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

St Albans City and District Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Helioslough Limited

Second Defendant

Hertfordshire County Council

Third Defendant

Goodman Logistics Development (UK) Limited

Fourth Defendant

STRiFE Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Section 288 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State fettered discretion by imposing a legal test requiring 'very good planning reason' to depart from previous decision
  2. 2 Whether failure to consider the Veolia decision was a material consideration in determining Helioslough's appeal
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness or legitimate expectation arose from not consulting on the Veolia decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State did not fetter discretion by imposing a legal test; the approach taken was a matter of judgment and weight, not law. The Veolia decision was not sufficiently closely related to Helioslough's appeal to be a material consideration, and thus no procedural unfairness or legitimate expectation arose. The Second Defendant is entitled only to costs for the second witness statement, not for broader representation.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay First Defendant's costs in the sum of £13,269.00
  • Claimant to pay Second Defendant's costs for preparation of Mr. Tilley's second witness statement, to be assessed if not agreed