Low Carbon Solar Park 6 Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor

Low Carbon Solar Park 6 Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor

The inspector's refusal to admit the claimant's rebuttal statement after the representation period did not amount to procedural unfairness because the claimant had adequate opportunity to respond to the objections before the end of the representation period, and the significance of heritage assets had not been identified as required by policy. The inspector would have reached the same conclusion even if the rebuttal had been considered.

Parties
Claimant: Low Carbon Solar Park 6 Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Uttlesford District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Planning Permission, Heritage Assets, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Planning Law Procedural Fairness Planning Permission Heritage Assets Judicial Review

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Low Carbon Solar Park 6 Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Uttlesford District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector's refusal to admit the claimant's rebuttal statement after the representation period was procedurally unfair
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to have regard to an obviously material consideration

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector's refusal to admit the claimant's rebuttal statement after the representation period did not amount to procedural unfairness because the claimant had adequate opportunity to respond to the objections before the end of the representation period, and the significance of heritage assets had not been identified as required by policy. The inspector would have reached the same conclusion even if the rebuttal had been considered.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review is refused
  • Any consequential matters to be determined on written submissions within 14 days