Dartford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Dartford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector gave adequate reasons for his conclusions on both housing supply and landscape character. His reasoning was coherent, addressed both character and visual effects, and was unimpeachable. The Inspector was entitled to use delivery rates as a relevant parameter and his approach was fully reasoned. The application had no merit and was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Dartford Borough Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Fairview New Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under S 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Development Plan Policy, National Planning Policy Framework, Housing Land Supply, Landscape Character, Reasoning Adequacy
Administrative Law Planning Law Planning Permission Development Plan Policy National Planning Policy Framework Housing Land Supply Landscape Character Reasoning Adequacy

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dartford Borough Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Fairview New Homes Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under S 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector failed to give adequate reasons for assessing the 5 year housing supply figure
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to give adequate reasons for finding the impact on landscape character acceptable

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector gave adequate reasons for his conclusions on both housing supply and landscape character. His reasoning was coherent, addressed both character and visual effects, and was unimpeachable. The Inspector was entitled to use delivery rates as a relevant parameter and his approach was fully reasoned. The application had no merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application under s 288 TCPA 1990 dismissed
  • Written submissions invited as to costs and any other orders