No Adastral New Town Ltd v Suffolk Coastal District Council & Anor [2014] EWHC 223 (Admin) (07 February 2014)

No Adastral New Town Ltd v Suffolk Coastal District Council & Anor [2014] EWHC 223 (Admin) (07 February 2014)

The court held that the defendant did not act unlawfully in the preparation and adoption of the Core Strategy. The sustainability appraisal process, while not perfect, was sufficient to comply with the SEA Directive and Regulations, as reasonable alternatives were considered and consulted upon at appropriate stages, and the process was capable of influencing the plan. The appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive was conducted with adequate consultation and mitigation measures, and statutory consultees were satisfied. The mitigation measures were not too uncertain, and policy SP20 was not undeliverable. The claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 223 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: No Adastral New Town Ltd; First Defendant: Suffolk Coastal District Council; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Strategic Environmental Assessment, Habitats Directive, Local Development Framework, Sustainability Appraisal, Appropriate Assessment, Judicial Review, Development Plan Documents
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law EU Law Strategic Environmental Assessment Habitats Directive Local Development Framework Sustainability Appraisal +3 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

No Adastral New Town Ltd

Claimant

Suffolk Coastal District Council

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant failed to comply with the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and Regulations in the preparation and adoption of the Core Strategy.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed to comply with the Habitats Directive and Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 regarding appropriate assessment and mitigation.
  3. 3 Whether the mitigation relied upon within the Core Strategy was too uncertain to comply with the Habitats Directive.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant did not act unlawfully in the preparation and adoption of the Core Strategy. The sustainability appraisal process, while not perfect, was sufficient to comply with the SEA Directive and Regulations, as reasonable alternatives were considered and consulted upon at appropriate stages, and the process was capable of influencing the plan. The appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive was conducted with adequate consultation and mitigation measures, and statutory consultees were satisfied. The mitigation measures were not too uncertain, and policy SP20 was not undeliverable. The claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed