Bromley v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Bromley v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector did not err in law. The housing shortfall, while considered in the UDP process, was shown by new evidence to persist and become more urgent, and no sequentially preferable sites were available. The Inspector's judgment that very special circumstances existed was open to him on the evidence and did not offend the primacy of the development plan. The reasons given were adequate.

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 / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 288 Challenge, Development Plan Primacy, Material Considerations in Planning, Metropolitan Open Land Policy, Housing Supply and Planning Permissions
Planning Law Administrative Law Section 288 Challenge Development Plan Primacy Material Considerations in Planning Metropolitan Open Land Policy Housing Supply and Planning Permissions

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by granting planning permission contrary to the development plan based on material considerations already assessed in the UDP process
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector gave adequate reasons for his decision
  3. 3 Whether the housing shortfall constituted 'very special circumstances' justifying development on Metropolitan Open Land

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law. The housing shortfall, while considered in the UDP process, was shown by new evidence to persist and become more urgent, and no sequentially preferable sites were available. The Inspector's judgment that very special circumstances existed was open to him on the evidence and did not offend the primacy of the development plan. The reasons given were adequate.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to quash the Inspector's decision is dismissed.