Brown v Carlisle City Council & Anor

Brown v Carlisle City Council & Anor

The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused because the environmental effects of the airside works will be assessed if and when a separate application is made, the section 106 agreement lawfully brought the development within the plan, referral to the Secretary of State was not required,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Thomas Gordon Brown; Defendant: Carlisle City Council; Interested Party: Stobart Air Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Section 106 Agreements, Development Plan Departures, Judicial Review Procedure
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Section 106 Agreements Development Plan Departures Judicial Review Procedure

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Gordon Brown

Claimant

Carlisle City Council

Defendant

Stobart Air Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of planning permission was unlawful due to failure to consider cumulative environmental effects under the EIA Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the planning authority was required to refer the application to the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan
  3. 3 Whether the planning committee was misled by the officer's report regarding legal advice

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused because the environmental effects of the airside works will be assessed if and when a separate application is made, the section 106 agreement lawfully brought the development within the plan, referral to the Secretary of State was not required, reasons were adequately given, the planning committee was not misled, and the section 106 agreement imposed enforceable obligations.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused