Bayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Bayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Inspector did not err in law; he considered the impact on the AONB discretely and in accordance with national and local policy, was not required to use the words 'great weight', did not conduct a comparative assessment of wind resources, and was not required to refer expressly to the controversy over wind data disclosure. The limited harm to the AONB was outweighed by the environmental and economic benefits of the scheme.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Gerald David Bayliss; Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Respondent/defendant: Purbeck District Council; Respondent/defendant: Purbeck Windfarm LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Challenge) / Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, National Planning Policy Framework, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Renewable Energy Development
Planning Law Administrative Law Town and Country Planning Act 1990 National Planning Policy Framework Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Renewable Energy Development

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerald David Bayliss

Appellant/claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Respondent/defendant

Purbeck District Council

Respondent/defendant

Purbeck Windfarm LLP

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Challenge) / Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Inspector fail to give proper weight to harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) as required by policy?
  2. 2 Was the Inspector's reliance on wind resource data in Purbeck erroneous or procedurally unfair?
  3. 3 Did the Inspector err by relying on undisclosed on-site wind data and failing to address controversy over its non-disclosure?

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law; he considered the impact on the AONB discretely and in accordance with national and local policy, was not required to use the words 'great weight', did not conduct a comparative assessment of wind resources, and was not required to refer expressly to the controversy over wind data disclosure. The limited harm to the AONB was outweighed by the environmental and economic benefits of the scheme.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court decision upheld.