Seedlings Property Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

Seedlings Property Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

Permission granted on Ground 2 as the inspector misstated the para.11(d) test, inverting the presumption in favour of approval, which is an arguable error of law; permission refused on Grounds 3 and 4 as the inspector's approach to deliverability and attribution of weight disclosed no arguable error of law.

Parties
Claimant: Seedlings Property Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Peterborough City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (statutory Review Under S.288 TCPA 1990) / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Statutory Review
Outcome
Permission granted in part; permission refused in part.
Legal Topics
Statutory Review, Planning Permission, Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development, Housing Land Supply, Judicial Review Grounds
Planning Law Administrative Law Statutory Review Planning Permission Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Housing Land Supply Judicial Review Grounds

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

Parties

Seedlings Property Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Peterborough City Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (statutory Review Under S.288 TCPA 1990) / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Statutory Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector misstated and misapplied the 'tilted balance' test under para.11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to determine if relevant development plan policies were out of date for para.11(d) purposes
  3. 3 Whether the inspector erred in treating 480 units at Site Number 166 as deliverable in light of Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority

Ratio Decidendi

Permission granted on Ground 2 as the inspector misstated the para.11(d) test, inverting the presumption in favour of approval, which is an arguable error of law; permission refused on Grounds 3 and 4 as the inspector's approach to deliverability and attribution of weight disclosed no arguable error of law.

Court Disposition

Permission granted in part; permission refused in part.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for statutory review granted on Ground 2.
  • Permission refused on Grounds 3 and 4.