Bromley v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2007] EWHC 2480 (Admin) (01 November 2007)

Bromley v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2007] EWHC 2480 (Admin) (01 November 2007)

The Inspector did not err in law; he considered updated evidence on housing supply and was entitled to conclude that very special circumstances existed to justify granting planning permission on Metropolitan Open Land. The circumstances were not identical to those considered in the UDP process, and the Inspector's reasoning was adequate and gave proper primacy to the development plan as required by section 38(6).

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2480 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: The London Borough of Bromley; 1st Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; 2nd Defendant: Castlefort Properties Ltd; Interested Party: North Copers Cope Road Action Group
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 288 Challenge, Material Considerations in Planning, Primacy of Development Plan, Metropolitan Open Land, Housing Supply Shortfall, Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Section 288 Challenge Material Considerations in Planning Primacy of Development Plan Metropolitan Open Land Housing Supply Shortfall +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The London Borough of Bromley

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

1st Defendant

Castlefort Properties Ltd

2nd Defendant

North Copers Cope Road Action Group

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by granting planning permission for development on Metropolitan Open Land based on housing shortfall as a 'very special circumstance'
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to give primacy to the development plan as required by section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's reasons were adequate and intelligible

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law; he considered updated evidence on housing supply and was entitled to conclude that very special circumstances existed to justify granting planning permission on Metropolitan Open Land. The circumstances were not identical to those considered in the UDP process, and the Inspector's reasoning was adequate and gave proper primacy to the development plan as required by section 38(6).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash Inspector's decision refused
  • No error of law found in Inspector's decision