JJ Gallagher Ltd & Ors v Cherwell District Council & Anor

JJ Gallagher Ltd & Ors v Cherwell District Council & Anor

Policy Bicester 13 is clear and unambiguous in prohibiting built development within the Conservation Target Area, but the inspector’s recommendation to adopt the policy as drafted was irrational and inadequately reasoned, as his findings supported some development within the CTA; the inspector erred in law by failing to provide reasons and acting contrary to his own planning judgment.

Parties
Claimant: JJ Gallagher Ltd; Claimant: London and Metropolitan International Developments Ltd; Claimant: Norman Trustees; Defendant: Cherwell District Council; Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; Policy Bicester 13 quashed and remitted.
Legal Topics
Local Development Plans, Statutory Interpretation, Planning Policy, Judicial Review, Reasoning Adequacy, Remedies
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Development Plans Statutory Interpretation Planning Policy Judicial Review Reasoning Adequacy Remedies

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

Parties

JJ Gallagher Ltd

Claimant

London and Metropolitan International Developments Ltd

Claimant

Norman Trustees

Claimant

Cherwell District Council

Defendant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is Policy Bicester 13 ambiguous?
  2. 2 Was the inspector’s report and recommendation irrational and/or inadequately reasoned?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate remedy for the legal error?

Ratio Decidendi

Policy Bicester 13 is clear and unambiguous in prohibiting built development within the Conservation Target Area, but the inspector’s recommendation to adopt the policy as drafted was irrational and inadequately reasoned, as his findings supported some development within the CTA; the inspector erred in law by failing to provide reasons and acting contrary to his own planning judgment.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Policy Bicester 13 quashed and remitted.

Orders

  • Policy Bicester 13 adopted by the first defendant on 20 July 2015 is to be treated as not adopted and remitted to the second defendant.
  • The second defendant is to appoint a planning inspector who recommends adoption of Policy Bicester 13 subject to a modification deleting the words 'that part of the site within the Conservation Target Area should be kept free from built development'.