Ashtenne Industrial Fund Ltd Partnership & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Ashtenne Industrial Fund Ltd Partnership & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector did not err in law in his interpretation and application of planning policy, assessment of retail need, sequential test, accessibility, retail impact, or open space provision. Adequate reasons were given, and no procedural unfairness occurred. The Claimants failed to establish any error of law.

Parties
Claimant: Ashtenne Industrial Fund Limited Partnership; Claimant: Asda Stores Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: North Wiltshire District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Statutory Challenge / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; judgment for the Defendant.
Legal Topics
Town and Country Planning, Development Plans, Retail Policy, Sequential Test, Planning Policy Statements, Open Space Provision
Planning Law Administrative Law Town and Country Planning Development Plans Retail Policy Sequential Test Planning Policy Statements Open Space Provision

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashtenne Industrial Fund Limited Partnership

Claimant

Asda Stores Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

North Wiltshire District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Statutory Challenge / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in refusing planning appeals for mixed use development including retail and residential uses.
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector misinterpreted or failed to apply relevant planning policies (Local Plan, PPS6, etc).
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to give adequate reasons or acted unfairly in his decision-making process.

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law in his interpretation and application of planning policy, assessment of retail need, sequential test, accessibility, retail impact, or open space provision. Adequate reasons were given, and no procedural unfairness occurred. The Claimants failed to establish any error of law.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; judgment for the Defendant.