Norman v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & Ors

Norman v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & Ors

The inspector's reasoning was adequate, any error regarding noise evidence was immaterial, the odour assessment was robust and did not conflate scales, technical matters were not principal controversial issues, the inspector lawfully considered the environmental permit, and the claimant lacked standing as a 'person aggrieved' under section 288 of the 1990 Act.

Parties
Claimant: Felicity Norman; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Herefordshire Council; Third Defendant: GT Williams
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Standing, Environmental Impact Assessment, Odour and Noise Pollution, Planning Permission, Environmental Permitting, Costs
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Standing Environmental Impact Assessment Odour and Noise Pollution Planning Permission Environmental Permitting +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Felicity Norman

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Herefordshire Council

Second Defendant

GT Williams

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector's reasoning was adequate
  2. 2 Whether the inspector misunderstood noise and odour evidence
  3. 3 Whether reliance on the environmental permit was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector's reasoning was adequate, any error regarding noise evidence was immaterial, the odour assessment was robust and did not conflate scales, technical matters were not principal controversial issues, the inspector lawfully considered the environmental permit, and the claimant lacked standing as a 'person aggrieved' under section 288 of the 1990 Act.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission granted on grounds 2 and 3 (noise and odour)
  • Claim dismissed on all grounds