Malvern Hills District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor
The Inspector failed to give adequate reasons for her assertion that the development complied with Local Plan Policies DS1, DS12 and DS14, constituting a material error of law and approach.
- Parties
- Claimant: Malvern Hills District Council; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Nick Jones
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 23 July 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- application granted; decision quashed; matter remitted for redetermination
- Legal Topics
- Development Plan Compliance, Adequacy of Reasons, National Planning Policy Framework, Housing Supply, Material Considerations
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Malvern Hills District Council
Claimant
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
First Defendant
Nick Jones
Second Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Inspector erred in determining compliance with Local Plan Policies DS1, DS12 and DS14
- 2 Whether the Inspector failed to give adequate reasons for her finding of compliance
- 3 Whether the Inspector failed to have regard to paragraph 55 of the NPPF
Ratio Decidendi
The Inspector failed to give adequate reasons for her assertion that the development complied with Local Plan Policies DS1, DS12 and DS14, constituting a material error of law and approach.
Court Disposition
application granted; decision quashed; matter remitted for redetermination
Orders
- The Secretary of State’s decision dated 17 February 2015 is quashed.
- The appeal is remitted to the Secretary of State for redetermination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment