East Staffordshire Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 2973 (Admin) (22 November 2016)

East Staffordshire Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 2973 (Admin) (22 November 2016)

Once a proposal is found to conflict with the Local Plan, the presumption in favour of sustainable development under paragraph 14 NPPF is rebutted and cannot be resurrected as a free-standing presumption; any discretion to approve must be exercised only in exceptional cases with clear, objective justification, and the Inspector must specifically address the weight and reasons for inconsistency with the Local Plan.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2973 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: East Staffordshire Borough Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Barwood Strategic Land II LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; Inspector's decision quashed.
Legal Topics
National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development, Local Plan Primacy, Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Material Considerations in Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Public Law National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Local Plan Primacy Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Material Considerations in Planning Decisions

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

Parties

East Staffordshire Borough Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Barwood Strategic Land II LLP

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by applying a presumption in favour of sustainable development outside the scope of paragraph 14 NPPF when the proposal conflicted with the Local Plan
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to properly balance the reasons for inconsistency with the Local Plan against other material considerations
  3. 3 Scope and limits of discretion under section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in the context of the NPPF

Ratio Decidendi

Once a proposal is found to conflict with the Local Plan, the presumption in favour of sustainable development under paragraph 14 NPPF is rebutted and cannot be resurrected as a free-standing presumption; any discretion to approve must be exercised only in exceptional cases with clear, objective justification, and the Inspector must specifically address the weight and reasons for inconsistency with the Local Plan.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Inspector's decision quashed.

Orders

  • The Inspector's decision granting planning permission is quashed.
  • Matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the judgment.