Adams (t/a Strategic Land Partnerships) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2009] EWHC 771 (Admin) (08 April 2009)

Adams (t/a Strategic Land Partnerships) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2009] EWHC 771 (Admin) (08 April 2009)

The Inspector did not err in law in his interpretation or application of planning policy. He was entitled to find that the proposed development conflicted with the spatial vision of the development plan and would cause significant harm to the AONB, and was not required to conduct a comparative harm assessment or find exceptional harm. The decision to dismiss the appeal was within the reasonable range of responses to the policy framework.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 771 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Terence Charles Adams trading as Strategic Land Partnerships; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Cheltenham Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under S288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Town and Country Planning, Development Control, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (aonb), Housing Supply, Judicial Review, Interpretation of Planning Policy
Planning Law Administrative Law Public Law Town and Country Planning Development Control Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (aonb) Housing Supply Judicial Review +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence Charles Adams trading as Strategic Land Partnerships

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Cheltenham Borough Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under S288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Planning Inspector erred in law in dismissing the claimant's appeal against refusal of planning permission for housing development in an AONB by misinterpreting policy and/or failing to consider relevant factors.

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law in his interpretation or application of planning policy. He was entitled to find that the proposed development conflicted with the spatial vision of the development plan and would cause significant harm to the AONB, and was not required to conduct a comparative harm assessment or find exceptional harm. The decision to dismiss the appeal was within the reasonable range of responses to the policy framework.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application to quash the Inspector's decision refused
  • No order for a new inquiry