Malvern Hills District Council v The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor

Malvern Hills District Council v The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor

The inspector did not err in law; he properly considered the impact of the building on the public footpath, applied the relevant planning policies including SWDP 34, and made rational planning judgments based on the evidence. The Council's grounds amounted to disagreement with the inspector's planning judgment, not legal error.

Parties
Claimant: Malvern Hills District Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Ross-on-Wye Steam Engine Society Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Planning Inspector
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Enforcement Notice, Public Rights of Way, Heritage Asset, Greenfield and Brownfield Sites, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Planning Permission Enforcement Notice Public Rights of Way Heritage Asset Greenfield and Brownfield Sites Judicial Review of Planning Decisions

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malvern Hills District Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Ross-on-Wye Steam Engine Society Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Planning Inspector

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector erred in law by failing to treat the blocking of a public footpath as a material consideration
  2. 2 Whether the inspector misapplied or misinterpreted Policy SWDP 34 regarding consideration of alternative brownfield sites before permitting development on greenfield land
  3. 3 Whether the inspector acted unfairly or irrationally in concluding there were no alternative storage options for the steam crane

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector did not err in law; he properly considered the impact of the building on the public footpath, applied the relevant planning policies including SWDP 34, and made rational planning judgments based on the evidence. The Council's grounds amounted to disagreement with the inspector's planning judgment, not legal error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed