STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE LIMITED v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR LEVELLING-UP, HOUSING AND COMMUNITIES & Ors

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE LIMITED v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR LEVELLING-UP, HOUSING AND COMMUNITIES & Ors

The Inspector did not err in law or act irrationally; he did not find access controls to be necessary for planning permission, properly considered the deed of grant and site allocation, and was entitled to rely on the continued validity of planning conditions given the applicant's failure to clearly articulate or evidence their unenforceability.

Parties
Claimant: Standard Life Assurance Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Bath and North East Somerset Council; Third Defendant: Oakhill Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Agent of Change Principle, Enforcement of Planning Conditions, Private Law Rights in Planning Context
Planning Law Administrative Law Planning Permission Judicial Review Agent of Change Principle Enforcement of Planning Conditions Private Law Rights in Planning Context

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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Standard Life Assurance Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Bath and North East Somerset Council

Second Defendant

Oakhill Group Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Planning Inspector's decision was irrational for failing to secure necessary access controls and infrastructure
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector misread the deed of grant and unlawfully relied on private law rights to discount planning harm
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to grapple with evidence regarding unenforceability of planning conditions due to continuous breach

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law or act irrationally; he did not find access controls to be necessary for planning permission, properly considered the deed of grant and site allocation, and was entitled to rely on the continued validity of planning conditions given the applicant's failure to clearly articulate or evidence their unenforceability.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed