Chichester District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

Chichester District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

The inspector lawfully concluded that the proposed development did not conflict with the neighbourhood plan, as the plan was silent on development outside the settlement boundary and specified sites. The distinction between 'policies' and 'aims' was rational, and the planning balance was properly struck.

Parties
Claimant: Chichester District Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Beechcroft Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Review, Neighbourhood Plans, Development Plan Conflict, Planning Permission, Interpretation of Planning Policy
Administrative Law Planning Law Statutory Review Neighbourhood Plans Development Plan Conflict Planning Permission Interpretation of Planning Policy

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chichester District Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Beechcroft Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector failed to decide if the proposed development conflicts with the neighbourhood plan as required by para 198 of the NPPF
  2. 2 Whether the inspector irrationally distinguished between the 'policies' and 'aims' of the neighbourhood plan when assessing conflict

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector lawfully concluded that the proposed development did not conflict with the neighbourhood plan, as the plan was silent on development outside the settlement boundary and specified sites. The distinction between 'policies' and 'aims' was rational, and the planning balance was properly struck.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed