Bayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Bayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Inspector did not err in law or approach in considering harm to the AONB, assessing the benefits of the windfarm development, or addressing safety concerns; the decision was made in accordance with relevant statutory provisions and policy guidance, and the balancing exercise was not irrational or inadequately reasoned.

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) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Renewable Energy, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (aonb), Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Planning Permission Renewable Energy Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (aonb) Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation

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 7 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) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in the weight given to harm to the AONB
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector erred in assessing the benefits of the windfarm development
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector erred in considering safety issues related to fall over distance

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law or approach in considering harm to the AONB, assessing the benefits of the windfarm development, or addressing safety concerns; the decision was made in accordance with relevant statutory provisions and policy guidance, and the balancing exercise was not irrational or inadequately reasoned.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed