Thomas Bates & Son Ltd., R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions & Anor [2004] EWHC 1818 (Admin) (13 July 2004)

Thomas Bates & Son Ltd., R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions & Anor [2004] EWHC 1818 (Admin) (13 July 2004)

The inspector correctly interpreted and applied the sequential test in PPG 25 as a zoning exercise, but failed, for purposes other than the sequential test, to properly take into account the actual flood risk to the site and relevant evidence, including the degree of protection afforded by the sea wall and the hydraulic independence point. This failure was material and justified quashing the decision.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1818 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Thomas Bates & Son Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; Second Defendant: Maldon District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; inspector's decision quashed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Flood Risk Assessment, Sequential Test (ppg 25), Judicial Review, Interpretation of Planning Policy
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Planning Permission Flood Risk Assessment Sequential Test (ppg 25) Judicial Review Interpretation of Planning Policy

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

Parties

Thomas Bates & Son Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

First Defendant

Maldon District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation and application of the sequential test in PPG 25 for flood risk in planning decisions
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to take into account actual flood risk and relevant evidence
  3. 3 Adequacy of the inspector's comparative assessment of alternative sites

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector correctly interpreted and applied the sequential test in PPG 25 as a zoning exercise, but failed, for purposes other than the sequential test, to properly take into account the actual flood risk to the site and relevant evidence, including the degree of protection afforded by the sea wall and the hydraulic independence point. This failure was material and justified quashing the decision.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; inspector's decision quashed

Orders

  • Inspector's decision quashed and remitted for redetermination
  • First respondent to pay claimant's costs, save in relation to the issue of the interpretation of PPG 25; costs to be assessed if not agreed