Derwent Holdings Ltd v Trafford Borough Council & Ors

Derwent Holdings Ltd v Trafford Borough Council & Ors

The planning committee was entitled to rely on the officer's advice, consider the two elements of the proposal separately, and give minimal weight to outdated policy S11(iv). There was no procedural unfairness or legal defect in the reasons given, and the planning agreement's standard wording did not undermine the validity of the permission.

Parties
Appellant: Derwent Holdings Ltd; 1st Respondent: Trafford Borough Council; 2nd Respondent: Tesco Stores Limited; 3rd Respondent: Lancashire County Cricket Club
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning Permission) / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Section 106 Agreements, Development Plan Policies, Procedural Fairness, Adequacy of Reasons
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Planning Permission Section 106 Agreements Development Plan Policies Procedural Fairness Adequacy of Reasons

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

Parties

Derwent Holdings Ltd

Appellant

Trafford Borough Council

1st Respondent

Tesco Stores Limited

2nd Respondent

Lancashire County Cricket Club

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning committee failed to take account of relevant guidance regarding the planning agreement
  2. 2 Whether the committee failed to have regard to UDP policy S11(iv)
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the committee's process

Ratio Decidendi

The planning committee was entitled to rely on the officer's advice, consider the two elements of the proposal separately, and give minimal weight to outdated policy S11(iv). There was no procedural unfairness or legal defect in the reasons given, and the planning agreement's standard wording did not undermine the validity of the permission.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed