Westerleigh Group Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2014] EWHC 4313 (Admin) (18 December 2014)

Westerleigh Group Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2014] EWHC 4313 (Admin) (18 December 2014)

The Inspector and Inspectorate applied the published criteria for determining the appeal procedure with appropriate judgment, considering both the complexity of the planning issues and the level of local opposition. The decision to proceed by written representations was neither unreasonable nor unfair. There was no obligation to consider alternative sites in the absence of significant adverse effects from the proposed development. The challenge fails on both grounds.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 4313 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Westerleigh Group Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Blaby District Council; Third Defendant: Memoria Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Appeals Procedure, Written Representations Vs Inquiry, Consideration of Alternative Sites, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Administrative Law Planning Law Planning Appeals Procedure Written Representations Vs Inquiry Consideration of Alternative Sites Procedural Fairness Judicial Review of 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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Westerleigh Group Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Blaby District Council

Second Defendant

Memoria Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Planning Inspector erred in law by determining the appeal under the written representations procedure rather than a public inquiry
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector acted unlawfully in his consideration of preferable alternative sites for the proposed development

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector and Inspectorate applied the published criteria for determining the appeal procedure with appropriate judgment, considering both the complexity of the planning issues and the level of local opposition. The decision to proceed by written representations was neither unreasonable nor unfair. There was no obligation to consider alternative sites in the absence of significant adverse effects from the proposed development. The challenge fails on both grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed