East Staffordshire Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

East Staffordshire Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

The Inspector erred in law by applying a presumption in favour of sustainable development outside the scope of paragraph 14 NPPF after finding the proposal inconsistent with the Local Plan, and by failing to properly weigh and explain the reasons for that inconsistency in his decision.

Parties
Claimant: East Staffordshire Borough Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Barwood Strategic Land II LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; Inspector's decision quashed.
Legal Topics
Sustainable Development, Local Plans, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Planning Permission, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Planning Law Sustainable Development Local Plans National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Planning Permission Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

East Staffordshire Borough Council

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Barwood Strategic Land II LLP

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector misdirected himself in law regarding the application of paragraph 14 of the NPPF
  2. 2 Scope of discretion to approve development inconsistent with a Local Plan
  3. 3 Duty to address reasons for inconsistency with Local Plan

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in law by applying a presumption in favour of sustainable development outside the scope of paragraph 14 NPPF after finding the proposal inconsistent with the Local Plan, and by failing to properly weigh and explain the reasons for that inconsistency in his decision.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; Inspector's decision quashed.

Orders

  • The Inspector's decision dated 29 April 2016 is quashed.