Standard Life Assurance Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing And Communities & Ors[2022] EWHC 2632 (Admin) (19 October 2022)

Standard Life Assurance Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing And Communities & Ors[2022] EWHC 2632 (Admin) (19 October 2022)

The Inspector's decision was not irrational or inadequately reasoned. He was entitled to conclude, on the evidence before him, that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the Industrial Estate or require further secured access measures. The Inspector properly interpreted the deed of grant, considered the planning harm, and applied relevant policy and legal principles. The Section 106 agreement and management plan mechanisms were sufficient. The claim is dismissed.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2632 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Standard Life Assurance Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Bath and North East Somerset Council; Third Defendant: Oakhill Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Substantive Claim
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 288 Challenge, Planning Permission, Right of Way, Section 106 Agreement, Agent of Change Principle, Planning Conditions, Judicial Review, Irrationality, Adequacy of Reasons
Planning Law Administrative Law Property Law Section 288 Challenge Planning Permission Right of Way Section 106 Agreement Agent of Change Principle +4 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Standard Life Assurance Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Bath and North East Somerset Council

Second Defendant

Oakhill Group Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Substantive Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector's decision to grant planning permission was irrational for failing to secure necessary access controls or infrastructure.
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector misinterpreted the deed of grant concerning the right of way and unlawfully relied on it to discount planning harm.
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to consider evidence that planning conditions restricting industrial operations were no longer enforceable, or gave inadequate reasons.

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's decision was not irrational or inadequately reasoned. He was entitled to conclude, on the evidence before him, that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the Industrial Estate or require further secured access measures. The Inspector properly interpreted the deed of grant, considered the planning harm, and applied relevant policy and legal principles. The Section 106 agreement and management plan mechanisms were sufficient. The claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's application to rely on further witness statements granted
  • Claim for judicial review dismissed