Broadview Energy Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2015] EWHC 1743 (Admin) (19 June 2015)

Broadview Energy Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2015] EWHC 1743 (Admin) (19 June 2015)

There was no breach of natural justice, procedural unfairness, or bias because the claimant was aware of the objections and issues raised by the MP, none of the correspondence or lobbying raised new material issues, and the Minister's decision was based on planning grounds, not on the MP's representations. The requirements of the planning propriety guidance and statutory rules were met.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1743 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Broadview Energy Developments Limited; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; 2nd Defendant: South Northamptonshire District Council; 3rd Defendant: Helmdon Stuchbury and Greatworth Windfarm Action Group
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Ministerial Decision Making, Apparent Bias, Natural Justice, Planning Appeals, Lobbying by Mps, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Planning Law Public Law Ministerial Decision Making Apparent Bias Natural Justice Planning Appeals Lobbying by Mps +1 more

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Broadview Energy Developments Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

1st Defendant

South Northamptonshire District Council

2nd Defendant

Helmdon Stuchbury and Greatworth Windfarm Action Group

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ministerial decision on planning appeal was unlawful due to undisclosed lobbying and correspondence by MP
  2. 2 Whether there was breach of natural justice or procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether there was actual or apparent bias by the decision-maker

Ratio Decidendi

There was no breach of natural justice, procedural unfairness, or bias because the claimant was aware of the objections and issues raised by the MP, none of the correspondence or lobbying raised new material issues, and the Minister's decision was based on planning grounds, not on the MP's representations. The requirements of the planning propriety guidance and statutory rules were met.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's application to quash the Secretary of State's decision is dismissed