Ashburton Trading Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

Ashburton Trading Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

Policy CS9(E) of the Islington Core Strategy means tall buildings are generally inappropriate and will not be supported except possibly in the Bunhill and Clerkenwell area. The inspector erred in law by interpreting the policy as allowing exceptions elsewhere in the borough. The judge was correct to quash the inspector’s decision as the necessary weighing of other material considerations against the breach of policy was not undertaken.

Parties
Appellant: Ashburton Trading Limited; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: London Borough of Islington
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Development Plan Policies, Statutory Construction, Planning Permission for Tall Buildings
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Development Plan Policies Statutory Construction Planning Permission for Tall Buildings

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashburton Trading Limited

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

London Borough of Islington

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of Policy CS9(E) of the Islington Core Strategy regarding tall buildings
  2. 2 Whether the inspector misapplied the development plan in granting planning permission for a 25-storey building
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in quashing the inspector’s decision

Ratio Decidendi

Policy CS9(E) of the Islington Core Strategy means tall buildings are generally inappropriate and will not be supported except possibly in the Bunhill and Clerkenwell area. The inspector erred in law by interpreting the policy as allowing exceptions elsewhere in the borough. The judge was correct to quash the inspector’s decision as the necessary weighing of other material considerations against the breach of policy was not undertaken.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the Secretary of State for reconsideration in light of the judgment