Bovale Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2008] EWHC 2538 (Admin) (13 October 2008)

Bovale Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2008] EWHC 2538 (Admin) (13 October 2008)

Where a proposed development conflicts with the development plan and the applicant relies on need to overcome that conflict, it is relevant and lawful for the decision-maker to consider whether that need could be met on alternative sites within the relevant area.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2538 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Bovale Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Hereford Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Development Plan Conflict, Affordable Housing, Employment Land, Alternative Sites, Judicial Review
Planning Law Administrative Law Planning Permission Development Plan Conflict Affordable Housing Employment Land Alternative Sites Judicial Review

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 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bovale Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Hereford Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in law by considering alternative sites as a material consideration
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to strike a proper balance between employment land retention and need for care facilities
  3. 3 Whether the inspector failed to give adequate reasons or consider relevant evidence on viability and affordable housing

Ratio Decidendi

Where a proposed development conflicts with the development plan and the applicant relies on need to overcome that conflict, it is relevant and lawful for the decision-maker to consider whether that need could be met on alternative sites within the relevant area.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay the first defendant's costs, summarily assessed at £8,500