Newark & Sherwood District Council v The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Ors [2018] EWHC B16 (QB) (19 July 2018)

Newark & Sherwood District Council v The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Ors [2018] EWHC B16 (QB) (19 July 2018)

The Inspector's Decision Letter, when read fairly and as a whole, clearly found a material inconsistency between local policy DM8 and national policy NPPF 55, lawfully attributed reduced weight to the local policy, and provided an intelligible and unimpeachable planning balance; there was no internal contradiction or legal error.

Citation
[2018] EWHC B16
Parties
Claimant: Newark and Sherwood District Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Dr Parsons; Third Defendant: Mrs Parsons
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Permission to Proceed on One Ground
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Review, Consistency of Local and National Planning Policy, Interpretation of NPPF Paragraph 55, Weight to Be Given to Development Plan Policies, Reasons Challenge in Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Statutory Review Consistency of Local and National Planning Policy Interpretation of NPPF Paragraph 55 Weight to Be Given to Development Plan Policies Reasons Challenge in Planning Decisions

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Newark and Sherwood District Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Dr Parsons

Second Defendant

Mrs Parsons

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment After Permission to Proceed on One Ground

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector's Decision Letter was intelligible regarding the consistency between local and national planning policy
  2. 2 Whether there was a contradiction in the Inspector's reasoning about policy consistency
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector lawfully attributed reduced weight to local policy DM8

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's Decision Letter, when read fairly and as a whole, clearly found a material inconsistency between local policy DM8 and national policy NPPF 55, lawfully attributed reduced weight to the local policy, and provided an intelligible and unimpeachable planning balance; there was no internal contradiction or legal error.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Statutory review under s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed