Kendall v Rochford District Council & Ano

Kendall v Rochford District Council & Ano

The council complied with its statement of community involvement and statutory consultation requirements in preparing the allocations plan. Although there was a breach of article 6 of the SEA directive and regulation 13 of the SEA regulations due to over-reliance on the website for public consultation, this breach did not cause substantial prejudice to the claimant or the public, nor would it have affected the outcome. Therefore, no remedy is granted.

Parties
Claimant: Linda Kendall; First Defendant: Rochford District Council; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Statutory Challenge Under Section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Public Consultation in Plan Making, Strategic Environmental Assessment (sea), Local Development Plans, Judicial Discretion in Remedies, Compliance With Statutory Consultation Requirements
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Public Consultation in Plan Making Strategic Environmental Assessment (sea) Local Development Plans Judicial Discretion in Remedies Compliance With Statutory Consultation Requirements

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Kendall

Claimant

Rochford District Council

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Challenge Under Section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the council complied with its statement of community involvement and section 19(3) of the 2004 Act
  2. 2 Whether the council complied with article 6 of the SEA directive and regulation 13 of the SEA regulations
  3. 3 Whether the inspector was obliged to remedy any harm from alleged SEA breaches in the core strategy process under regulation 8 of the 2012 regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The council complied with its statement of community involvement and statutory consultation requirements in preparing the allocations plan. Although there was a breach of article 6 of the SEA directive and regulation 13 of the SEA regulations due to over-reliance on the website for public consultation, this breach did not cause substantial prejudice to the claimant or the public, nor would it have affected the outcome. Therefore, no remedy is granted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed