Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Secretary of State's decision was not inconsistent or irrational, as there were material differences between the present case and Binhamy Farm, particularly the scale and impact of the development. The Secretary of State provided adequate reasons for his decision, focusing on the prejudicial effect of granting permission for a large development before completion of the LDF process and the importance of local decision-making. The application was refused because the proposal was contrary to the development plan, would prejudice the LDF process, and undermine wider policy objectives.

Parties
Claimant: Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Cornwall Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Prematurity in Planning Decisions, Consistency in Planning Appeals, Localism Policy, Housing Land Supply, Development Plan Conformity
Administrative Law Planning Law Prematurity in Planning Decisions Consistency in Planning Appeals Localism Policy Housing Land Supply Development Plan Conformity

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Cornwall Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State's decision was inconsistent with previous materially similar decisions, particularly Binhamy Farm, Bude
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State's decision was internally inconsistent and irrational by adopting the Inspector's conclusion on prematurity but rejecting its premises
  3. 3 Whether adequate reasons were given for departing from previous decisions and for the refusal

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's decision was not inconsistent or irrational, as there were material differences between the present case and Binhamy Farm, particularly the scale and impact of the development. The Secretary of State provided adequate reasons for his decision, focusing on the prejudicial effect of granting permission for a large development before completion of the LDF process and the importance of local decision-making. The application was refused because the proposal was contrary to the development plan, would prejudice the LDF process, and undermine wider policy objectives.

Court Disposition

Application refused