Higham, R (On the Application Of) v Venning & Anor

Higham, R (On the Application Of) v Venning & Anor

The Council acted lawfully in excluding Councillor Blakeley as he was not on the approved substitutes list and the procedural requirements were not met. The committee report did not materially mislead members regarding heritage, energy generation, or AONB issues. The Council had regard to all material considerations, and any omissions or summaries in the report did not amount to errors of law or procedural unfairness. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Peter Higham; Defendant: Cornwall Council; First Interested Party: A J Venning; Second Interested Party: Clean Earth Energy Wind Investments Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Heritage Assets, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Local Government Procedure
Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review Planning Permission Heritage Assets Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Local Government Procedure

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Higham

Claimant

Cornwall Council

Defendant

A J Venning

First Interested Party

Clean Earth Energy Wind Investments Ltd

Second Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion of Councillor Blakeley from the committee meeting was unlawful and required reconsideration of the planning application
  2. 2 Whether the committee report misrepresented English Heritage's advice and understated heritage concerns
  3. 3 Whether the Council failed to properly assess the public benefits of the wind turbine, particularly electricity generation figures

Ratio Decidendi

The Council acted lawfully in excluding Councillor Blakeley as he was not on the approved substitutes list and the procedural requirements were not met. The committee report did not materially mislead members regarding heritage, energy generation, or AONB issues. The Council had regard to all material considerations, and any omissions or summaries in the report did not amount to errors of law or procedural unfairness. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed