Ocean Outdoor UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2025] EWHC 901 (Admin) (11 April 2025)

Ocean Outdoor UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2025] EWHC 901 (Admin) (11 April 2025)

The Inspector was entitled to determine the appeal on the basis of the written representations and the material before her. There was no breach of the common law duty of fairness or the Tameside duty, as the Claimant had the opportunity to submit all relevant evidence and failed to do so. The Inspector was not required to request further information or hold a hearing. The Inspector's approach to national and local policy was lawful and rational.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 901 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Ocean Outdoor UK Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: London Borough of Hounslow; Third Defendant: Hyundai Motor UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Planning Statutory Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Oral Hearing on Renewed Application for Permission
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals, Advertisement Consent, Written Representations Procedure, Local Plan Policy Interpretation
Administrative Law Planning Law Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals Advertisement Consent Written Representations Procedure Local Plan Policy Interpretation

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ocean Outdoor UK Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

London Borough of Hounslow

Second Defendant

Hyundai Motor UK Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Planning Statutory Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Oral Hearing on Renewed Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector breached the common law duty of fairness by failing to give the Claimant an opportunity to corroborate evidence on active marketing of the site
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed the Tameside duty to acquaint herself with relevant information about active marketing
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to properly consider the differences between Local Plan Policy CC5 and national Planning Practice Guidance

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to determine the appeal on the basis of the written representations and the material before her. There was no breach of the common law duty of fairness or the Tameside duty, as the Claimant had the opportunity to submit all relevant evidence and failed to do so. The Inspector was not required to request further information or hold a hearing. The Inspector's approach to national and local policy was lawful and rational.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed