Starbones Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2020] EWHC 526 (Admin) (10 March 2020)

Starbones Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2020] EWHC 526 (Admin) (10 March 2020)

The Secretary of State did not err in law or act irrationally in his decision to refuse planning permission. He considered the Inspector's analysis of alternative schemes and the context, gave adequate reasons for his conclusions, and was entitled to disagree with the Inspector's planning judgment. The reasons provided were sufficient to enable the Claimant to understand the decision, and there was no substantial prejudice caused by any alleged inadequacy. The Secretary of State properly applied the statutory and policy framework, including the weight to be given to emerging policies.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 526 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Starbones Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: London Borough of Hounslow; Third Defendant: Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, World Heritage Sites, Judicial Review, Decision Making Standards, Adequacy of Reasons
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Law Planning Permission Listed Buildings Conservation Areas World Heritage Sites Judicial Review +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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Starbones Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

London Borough of Hounslow

Second Defendant

Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State failed to have regard to the relative impact on heritage assets of alternative schemes (the Citadel or policy-compliant development)
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to understand and apply paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework regarding emerging policies and the weight to be given to the Draft Replacement London Plan
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State gave adequate reasons for disagreeing with the Inspector's recommendation

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State did not err in law or act irrationally in his decision to refuse planning permission. He considered the Inspector's analysis of alternative schemes and the context, gave adequate reasons for his conclusions, and was entitled to disagree with the Inspector's planning judgment. The reasons provided were sufficient to enable the Claimant to understand the decision, and there was no substantial prejudice caused by any alleged inadequacy. The Secretary of State properly applied the statutory and policy framework, including the weight to be given to emerging policies.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash the Secretary of State's decision refused
  • No order for costs specified in the judgment