Davey v Aylesbury Vale District Council & Anor

Davey v Aylesbury Vale District Council & Anor

The Council's approach to enabling development, the absence of a Green Travel Plan, and the lack of a helicopter condition were all matters within its planning judgment, properly considered and rationally decided on the evidence and advice before it. Any procedural defects were rendered academic by the subsequent section 106 undertaking, and there was no public law error warranting relief.

Parties
Claimant: Jonathan Davey; Defendant: Aylesbury Vale District Council; Interested Party: Mentmore Towers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Enabling Development, Listed Buildings, Planning Permission, Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Conditions, Section 106 Agreements
Planning Law Administrative Law Enabling Development Listed Buildings Planning Permission Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Conditions Section 106 Agreements

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

Parties

Jonathan Davey

Claimant

Aylesbury Vale District Council

Defendant

Mentmore Towers Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's approach to enabling development was lawful and rational
  2. 2 Whether failure to require a Green Travel Plan was unlawful
  3. 3 Whether failure to impose a planning condition restricting helicopter flights was unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's approach to enabling development, the absence of a Green Travel Plan, and the lack of a helicopter condition were all matters within its planning judgment, properly considered and rationally decided on the evidence and advice before it. Any procedural defects were rendered academic by the subsequent section 106 undertaking, and there was no public law error warranting relief.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed