Street v Cardiff County Council

Street v Cardiff County Council

The grounds advanced by the claimant were not sufficiently arguable to warrant permission for judicial review. The planning committee had proper regard to the relevant policies, measurements, and material considerations, and was not misled by the officer's report. The interpretation of policy 7 and condition 5.7 was not unreasonable. The claimant, having brought the claim partly in his own interests and having had full opportunity to make representations, should pay the defendant's costs of the acknowledgement of service.

Parties
Claimant: Kenneth Street; Defendant: Cardiff County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Application and Costs Determination
Outcome
Permission for judicial review refused; costs awarded to defendant
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review Planning Permission Costs Orders

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Street

Claimant

Cardiff County Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Application and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning committee misapplied relevant planning policies in granting permission for the development in Britannia Park
  2. 2 Whether the officer's report misled the committee on material matters
  3. 3 Whether the interpretation of policy 7 and condition 5.7 was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense

Ratio Decidendi

The grounds advanced by the claimant were not sufficiently arguable to warrant permission for judicial review. The planning committee had proper regard to the relevant policies, measurements, and material considerations, and was not misled by the officer's report. The interpretation of policy 7 and condition 5.7 was not unreasonable. The claimant, having brought the claim partly in his own interests and having had full opportunity to make representations, should pay the defendant's costs of the acknowledgement of service.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused; costs awarded to defendant

Orders

  • Permission to continue judicial review proceedings refused
  • Claimant to pay defendant's costs of £1,369 for the acknowledgement of service