Ockham Parish Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2024] EWHC 3552 (Admin) (05 December 2024)

Ockham Parish Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2024] EWHC 3552 (Admin) (05 December 2024)

Inspector's decision demonstrated correct understanding and application of relevant planning policies, provided adequate reasons, exercised planning judgment within legal bounds, and lawfully discharged Habitats Regulations duties. No arguable ground for judicial review or costs challenge was established.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3552 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Ockham Parish Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Guildford Borough Council; Third Defendant: Taylor Wimpey UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Renewed Application for Permission Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Permission refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Planning Permission Challenge, Development Plan Compliance, Habitats Regulations Assessment, Costs in Planning Inquiries
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Planning Permission Challenge Development Plan Compliance Habitats Regulations Assessment Costs in Planning Inquiries

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ockham Parish Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Guildford Borough Council

Second Defendant

Taylor Wimpey UK Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Renewed Application for Permission Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inspector misinterpreted policy A35 regarding access arrangements
  2. 2 Adequacy of trip generation analysis for B1 office development
  3. 3 Reliance on Traffic Regulation Orders for cycle route safety

Ratio Decidendi

Inspector's decision demonstrated correct understanding and application of relevant planning policies, provided adequate reasons, exercised planning judgment within legal bounds, and lawfully discharged Habitats Regulations duties. No arguable ground for judicial review or costs challenge was established.

Court Disposition

Permission refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to bring judicial review refused.
  • Costs challenge dismissed.