Ecotricity Next Generation Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2015] EWHC 189 (Admin) (04 February 2015)

Ecotricity Next Generation Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2015] EWHC 189 (Admin) (04 February 2015)

The Inspector made a material mistake of fact regarding the visibility of the church tower and the turbine, which played a significant part in her reasoning on heritage impact, resulting in unfairness and an error of law. The Inspector also failed to adequately explain which heritage assets were affected and to what extent.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 189 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Ecotricity Next Generation Ltd; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Torridge District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; Inspector's decision quashed.
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Renewable Energy Development, Landscape Impact, Heritage Assets, Mistake of Fact, Adequacy of Reasons
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Protection Planning Permission Renewable Energy Development Landscape Impact Heritage Assets Mistake of Fact +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ecotricity Next Generation Ltd

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Torridge District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to have proper regard to material considerations in the form of the Council's Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment and failed to give adequate reasons
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in findings and conclusions on heritage assets, specifically the setting of St Peter's Church

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector made a material mistake of fact regarding the visibility of the church tower and the turbine, which played a significant part in her reasoning on heritage impact, resulting in unfairness and an error of law. The Inspector also failed to adequately explain which heritage assets were affected and to what extent.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; Inspector's decision quashed.

Orders

  • The decision of the Inspector dated 7 July 2014 is quashed.