Bayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2013] EWHC 1612 (Admin) (13 June 2013)

Bayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2013] EWHC 1612 (Admin) (13 June 2013)

The Inspector did not err in law in his approach to the harm to the AONB, the assessment of the benefits of the windfarm development, or the consideration of safety issues. The Inspector's decision was adequately reasoned, consistent with policy, and within the bounds of planning judgment. No ground for quashing the planning permission was made out.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1612 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Gerald David Bayliss; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Purbeck District Council; Third Defendant: Purbeck Windfarm LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Renewable Energy Development, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (aonb), Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Material Considerations in Planning, Safety and Proximity Requirements
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Permission Renewable Energy Development Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (aonb) Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation +2 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerald David Bayliss

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Purbeck District Council

Second Defendant

Purbeck Windfarm LLP

Third 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 in his approach to harm to the AONB and the weight given to it
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in assessing the benefits of the windfarm development, particularly regarding wind resource data and viability
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to properly consider safety issues, specifically fall over distance and proximity to highways

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law in his approach to the harm to the AONB, the assessment of the benefits of the windfarm development, or the consideration of safety issues. The Inspector's decision was adequately reasoned, consistent with policy, and within the bounds of planning judgment. No ground for quashing the planning permission was made out.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed