FCC Environment v (1) Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government (2) East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2014] EWHC 2035 (Admin) (23 June 2014)

FCC Environment v (1) Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government (2) East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2014] EWHC 2035 (Admin) (23 June 2014)

The Inspector did not fail to take into account any material consideration, did not misunderstand or misapply the law or policy on Grampian conditions, provided adequate and intelligible reasons for all findings, and was entitled to conclude that the proposal was not sustainable development due to both defence and visual impact grounds.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2035 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: FCC Environment; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Grampian Conditions, Judicial Review, Reasoning in Planning Decisions, Sustainable Development, Visual Impact Assessment, Defence and National Security in Planning
Planning Law Administrative Law Public Law Planning Permission Grampian Conditions Judicial Review Reasoning in Planning Decisions Sustainable Development +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FCC Environment

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to take into account a material consideration (ODPM letter 25 November 2002)
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector misunderstood fact, law or policy relating to Grampian conditions
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to provide adequate reasoning for findings on visual impact and policy compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not fail to take into account any material consideration, did not misunderstand or misapply the law or policy on Grampian conditions, provided adequate and intelligible reasons for all findings, and was entitled to conclude that the proposal was not sustainable development due to both defence and visual impact grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed