Tegni Cymru Cyf v The Welsh Ministers & Anor [2010] EWHC 1106 (Admin) (20 May 2010)

Tegni Cymru Cyf v The Welsh Ministers & Anor [2010] EWHC 1106 (Admin) (20 May 2010)

The Inspector failed to provide adequate reasons for his conclusion that the noise impact of the proposed wind farm was unacceptable, giving rise to substantial doubt as to whether he erred in law. The reasoning on noise impact was insufficiently explained, particularly in reconciling compliance with ETSU-R-97 with a finding of unacceptable impact under policy MEW 10(iv).

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1106 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: TEGNI CYMRU CYF; First Defendant: THE WELSH MINISTERS; Second Defendant: DENBIGHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; Inspector's decision quashed.
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Wind Farm Development, Noise Impact, Visual Amenity, Adequacy of Reasons, Procedural Fairness, Material Considerations, Development Plan Policies
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Planning Permission Wind Farm Development Noise Impact Visual Amenity Adequacy of Reasons +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TEGNI CYMRU CYF

Claimant

THE WELSH MINISTERS

First Defendant

DENBIGHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector's decision on visual impact and noise was unreasonable or inadequately reasoned
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to give sufficient reasons for his conclusions
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the conduct of the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector failed to provide adequate reasons for his conclusion that the noise impact of the proposed wind farm was unacceptable, giving rise to substantial doubt as to whether he erred in law. The reasoning on noise impact was insufficiently explained, particularly in reconciling compliance with ETSU-R-97 with a finding of unacceptable impact under policy MEW 10(iv).

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; Inspector's decision quashed.

Orders

  • The Inspector's decision dated 18 November 2009 is quashed.
  • The claimant's planning appeal is to be reconsidered.