Holder v Gedling Borough Council & Ors

Holder v Gedling Borough Council & Ors

The planning committee was wrongly advised that precedent, alternatives, and efficiency were not material considerations in the context of inappropriate development in the Green Belt. These were material and should have been considered in assessing whether very special circumstances existed. The legal error vitiated the decision, and the permission must be quashed.

Parties
Appellant: Christopher James Holder; 1st Respondent: Gedling Borough Council; 2nd Respondent/interested Party: Mr John Nigel Charles-Jones; 2nd Respondent/interested Party: Mrs Catherine Mary Charles-Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning Permission) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; planning permission quashed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Material Planning Considerations, Renewable Energy, Judicial Review, Discretionary Relief
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Green Belt Policy Material Planning Considerations Renewable Energy Judicial Review Discretionary Relief

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher James Holder

Appellant

Gedling Borough Council

1st Respondent

Mr John Nigel Charles-Jones

2nd Respondent/interested Party

Mrs Catherine Mary Charles-Jones

2nd Respondent/interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning Permission) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning committee was misdirected as to material planning considerations in granting permission for a wind turbine in the Green Belt
  2. 2 Whether precedent, alternatives, and efficiency were material considerations wrongly disregarded
  3. 3 Whether the grant of permission should be quashed despite the turbine having been erected

Ratio Decidendi

The planning committee was wrongly advised that precedent, alternatives, and efficiency were not material considerations in the context of inappropriate development in the Green Belt. These were material and should have been considered in assessing whether very special circumstances existed. The legal error vitiated the decision, and the permission must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; planning permission quashed

Orders

  • The challenged planning permission is quashed.
  • Any reconsideration of the planning application is remitted to the Council.