Low Carbon Solar Park 6 Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor [2024] EWHC 770 (Admin) (05 April 2024)

Low Carbon Solar Park 6 Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor [2024] EWHC 770 (Admin) (05 April 2024)

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 within the prescribed period, and the statutory scheme vested discretion in the inspector to admit or disregard late representations. The inspector's approach was consistent with the statutory framework and relevant policy, and the outcome would have been the same even if the rebuttal had been considered.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 770 (Admin)
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
05 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Planning Permission, Heritage Assets, Judicial Review, Late Representations, Material Considerations
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Procedural Fairness Planning Permission Heritage Assets Judicial Review Late Representations +1 more

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 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 take into account 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 within the prescribed period, and the statutory scheme vested discretion in the inspector to admit or disregard late representations. The inspector's approach was consistent with the statutory framework and relevant policy, and the outcome would have been the same even if the rebuttal had been considered.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed