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

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

The Secretary of State did not commit an error of law in interpreting or applying heritage policy, did not conflate harm to setting with harm to significance, provided adequate reasons for his decision, and was entitled to reach a different planning judgment from the Inspector. The Great Wymondley decision was not sufficiently similar to require detailed explanation for the different outcome. The statutory review grounds failed.

Parties
Claimant: Anesco Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: West Northamptonshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; permission refused on ground 2; statutory review application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Statutory Review Under S.288 TCPA 1990, Heritage Assets and Setting, Consistency in Planning Decisions, Application of EN 1 and EN 3 Policy, Interpretation of NPPF, Planning Judgment and Reasons
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Law Statutory Review Under S.288 TCPA 1990 Heritage Assets and Setting Consistency in Planning Decisions Application of EN 1 and EN 3 Policy Interpretation of NPPF +1 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 7 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anesco Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

West Northamptonshire Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State properly interpreted and applied heritage policy and national planning policy statements EN-1 and EN-3
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State conflated harm to setting with harm to significance of heritage assets
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State failed to give adequate reasons for departing from the Inspector's recommendation

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State did not commit an error of law in interpreting or applying heritage policy, did not conflate harm to setting with harm to significance, provided adequate reasons for his decision, and was entitled to reach a different planning judgment from the Inspector. The Great Wymondley decision was not sufficiently similar to require detailed explanation for the different outcome. The statutory review grounds failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; permission refused on ground 2; statutory review application dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal on ground 1 dismissed
  • Permission to bring statutory review proceedings in ground 2 refused