Stop Portland Waste Incinerator v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

Stop Portland Waste Incinerator v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Inspector and Secretary of State correctly interpreted and applied the Waste Plan spatial strategy and Policy 4, including the proximity principle. The reasoning was adequate and rational, and no material errors of fact or misapplication of policy occurred. The claim failed to meet the threshold for judicial intervention.

Parties
Claimant: Stop Portland Waste Incinerator (an unincorporated association acting through Deborah Tulett); First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Powerfuel Portland Limited; Third Defendant: Dorset Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Substantive Hearing and Permission Applications
Outcome
Claim dismissed; permission to apply for statutory review refused on Grounds 2 and 3, substantive claim on Ground 1 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Statutory Review, Planning Permission, Waste Management, Development Plan Interpretation, Judicial Review Principles, Proximity Principle, Green Belt Policy
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Statutory Review Planning Permission Waste Management Development Plan Interpretation Judicial Review Principles +2 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stop Portland Waste Incinerator (an unincorporated association acting through Deborah Tulett)

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Powerfuel Portland Limited

Second Defendant

Dorset Council

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Substantive Hearing and Permission Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision-maker misinterpreted Policy 4 of the Waste Plan or failed to give adequate reasons on principal contested issues
  2. 2 Whether material errors of fact were made regarding the Canford ERF proposal
  3. 3 Whether Policy 4(a) was misapplied by comparing proposals instead of sites

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector and Secretary of State correctly interpreted and applied the Waste Plan spatial strategy and Policy 4, including the proximity principle. The reasoning was adequate and rational, and no material errors of fact or misapplication of policy occurred. The claim failed to meet the threshold for judicial intervention.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; permission to apply for statutory review refused on Grounds 2 and 3, substantive claim on Ground 1 dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for statutory review refused on Grounds 2 and 3.
  • Statutory review claim on Ground 1 dismissed.