Broadview Energy Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Broadview Energy Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Secretary of State's decision was not unlawful because all material issues were canvassed at the public inquiry, no new material was raised in the MP's correspondence or meetings, the claimant had knowledge of the issues, and there was no procedural unfairness, bias, or material breach of planning propriety guidance.

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 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Ministerial Decision Making, Natural Justice, Bias, Planning Permission, Lobbying, Planning Propriety Guidance
Administrative Law Planning Law Ministerial Decision Making Natural Justice Bias Planning Permission Lobbying Planning Propriety Guidance

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 17 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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ministerial decision to refuse planning permission was unlawful due to undisclosed lobbying and correspondence by an MP
  2. 2 Whether the decision was vitiated by actual or apparent bias
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State breached planning propriety guidance

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's decision was not unlawful because all material issues were canvassed at the public inquiry, no new material was raised in the MP's correspondence or meetings, the claimant had knowledge of the issues, and there was no procedural unfairness, bias, or material breach of planning propriety guidance.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash the Secretary of State’s decision is refused