Save Our Greenhills Community Group v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors

Save Our Greenhills Community Group v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors

The claimant had adequate opportunity to be heard and participate in the planning process regarding the amended plans; the Inspector exercised reasonable judgment in not requiring further environmental evidence; reliance on the section 106 obligation for SUDS was legitimate; and the Inspector properly assessed the impact on heritage assets, resulting in no procedural unfairness or legal error.

Parties
Claimant: Save Our Greenhills Community Group; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Shropshire Council; Third Defendant: TGC Renewables Ltd and Robert Wall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Statutory Challenge Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Legitimate Expectation, Planning Permission, Heritage Assets, Sustainable Drainage Systems (suds), Section 106 Obligations
Administrative Law Planning Law Heritage Law Procedural Fairness Legitimate Expectation Planning Permission Heritage Assets Sustainable Drainage Systems (suds) +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 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Save Our Greenhills Community Group

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Shropshire Council

Second Defendant

TGC Renewables Ltd and Robert Wall

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Challenge Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to publicise the increase in solar panels constituted procedural unfairness and breach of legitimate expectation
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to undertake proper enquiry into environmental effects of the revised scheme
  3. 3 Whether reliance on a section 106 obligation for SUDS was legitimate without public consultation

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant had adequate opportunity to be heard and participate in the planning process regarding the amended plans; the Inspector exercised reasonable judgment in not requiring further environmental evidence; reliance on the section 106 obligation for SUDS was legitimate; and the Inspector properly assessed the impact on heritage assets, resulting in no procedural unfairness or legal error.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission granted for Grounds 1, 2, and 4; refused for Ground 3
  • Challenge dismissed; no relief granted