Lark Energy Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 2006 (Admin) (20 June 2014)

Lark Energy Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor [2014] EWHC 2006 (Admin) (20 June 2014)

The Secretary of State failed to provide adequate reasons reconciling the conflict between two key development plan policies (DM03 and DM27), leaving genuine doubt as to whether the decision was made in accordance with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This was a fatal flaw warranting quashing of the decision.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2006 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Lark Energy Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Waveney District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; Secretary of State's decision quashed and remitted for redetermination.
Legal Topics
Renewable Energy, Development Plan Policy, Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Renewable Energy Development Plan Policy Judicial Review Planning Permission Statutory 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lark Energy Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Waveney District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State erred in law by failing to consider the proposal on its own merits and by giving undue weight to a fallback position (ground 1)
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to comply with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 by not properly reconciling conflicting development plan policies (ground 2)
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State failed to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development under paragraph 14 of the NPPF (ground 3)

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State failed to provide adequate reasons reconciling the conflict between two key development plan policies (DM03 and DM27), leaving genuine doubt as to whether the decision was made in accordance with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This was a fatal flaw warranting quashing of the decision.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; Secretary of State's decision quashed and remitted for redetermination.

Orders

  • The Secretary of State's decision is quashed.
  • The appeal is remitted to the Secretary of State for redetermination.