Amstel Group Corporation v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2018] EWHC 633 (Admin) (26 March 2018)

Amstel Group Corporation v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2018] EWHC 633 (Admin) (26 March 2018)

The Inspector did not err in law in his approach to sustainable development, the application of the tilted balance in NPPF 14, the statutory duties under PLBCAA 1990, or the consideration of the public benefit of a new school. The Inspector's planning judgment and reasoning were lawful and within his discretion. All grounds of challenge were unarguable and permission was refused.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 633 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Amstel Group Corporation; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: North Norfolk District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Permission Hearing and Substantive Determination
Outcome
Permission refused; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Development Plan, Heritage Assets, Sustainable Development, Statutory Interpretation, Section 288 TCPA 1990, Section 66 and 72 PLBCAA 1990, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Section 106 Obligations
Planning Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Planning Permission Development Plan Heritage Assets Sustainable Development Statutory Interpretation +4 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amstel Group Corporation

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

North Norfolk District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Permission Hearing and Substantive Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to properly consider sustainable development under the NPPF
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to apply the 'tilted balance' in NPPF 14
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector misapplied NPPF 134 and the statutory duties under PLBCAA 1990

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law in his approach to sustainable development, the application of the tilted balance in NPPF 14, the statutory duties under PLBCAA 1990, or the consideration of the public benefit of a new school. The Inspector's planning judgment and reasoning were lawful and within his discretion. All grounds of challenge were unarguable and permission was refused.

Court Disposition

Permission refused; claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for permission refused on all grounds.
  • No order quashing the Inspector's decision.