Bredhurst Parish Council v Maidstone Borough Council & Ors

Bredhurst Parish Council v Maidstone Borough Council & Ors

The inspector's reasoning on the deliverability of the Link Road, including consideration of both the preferred and fallback routes, met the legal requirements for adequacy and rationality under the NPPF and PPG. There was no arguable misdirection or unreasonableness, and the statutory soundness threshold was satisfied.

Parties
Claimant: Bredhurst Parish Council; First Defendant: Maidstone Borough Council; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Third Defendant: F. D. Attwood and Partners
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (statutory Review Under Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) / Permission Hearing (renewed Application After Paper Refusal)
Outcome
Permission for statutory review refused (renewed application dismissed)
Legal Topics
Statutory Review of Development Plan Document, Soundness of Local Plan Policy, Deliverability of Strategic Infrastructure, Adequacy of Inspector's Reasoning, Interpretation of NPPF and PPG
Planning Law Administrative Law Public Law Statutory Review of Development Plan Document Soundness of Local Plan Policy Deliverability of Strategic Infrastructure Adequacy of Inspector's Reasoning Interpretation of NPPF and PPG

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bredhurst Parish Council

Claimant

Maidstone Borough Council

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

Second Defendant

F. D. Attwood and Partners

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (statutory Review Under Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) / Permission Hearing (renewed Application After Paper Refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector's reasoning on deliverability of the Link Road was legally adequate
  2. 2 Whether the inspector misapplied the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
  3. 3 Whether the inspector's decision was unreasonable or irrational in public law terms

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector's reasoning on the deliverability of the Link Road, including consideration of both the preferred and fallback routes, met the legal requirements for adequacy and rationality under the NPPF and PPG. There was no arguable misdirection or unreasonableness, and the statutory soundness threshold was satisfied.

Court Disposition

Permission for statutory review refused (renewed application dismissed)

Orders

  • Renewed application for permission is dismissed