Woodfield v J.J. Gallagher Ltd & Ors

Woodfield v J.J. Gallagher Ltd & Ors

The judge's order was within the scope of the court's powers under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as the inspector's planning judgment was clear and the only error was a failure to translate that judgment into the policy wording. The court's directions remedied this error without usurping the functions of the inspector or council, and further public participation or re-examination was unnecessary given the full prior process.

Parties
Appellant: Dominic Woodfield; Respondent: J. J. Gallagher Ltd.; Respondent: London and Metropolitan International Developments Ltd.; Respondent: Norman Trustees; Interested Party: Cherwell District Council; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Statutory Challenge (planning) / Appeal From Administrative Court (planning Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Local Plan Adoption, Remedies Under Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Judicial Directions and Relief, Public Participation in Plan Making
Planning Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Local Plan Adoption Remedies Under Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Judicial Directions and Relief Public Participation in Plan Making

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominic Woodfield

Appellant

J. J. Gallagher Ltd.

Respondent

London and Metropolitan International Developments Ltd.

Respondent

Norman Trustees

Respondent

Cherwell District Council

Interested Party

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Statutory Challenge (planning) / Appeal From Administrative Court (planning Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court below exceeded its powers under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in granting relief regarding the adoption of a local plan policy.
  2. 2 Whether the order made by the judge was misconceived or at odds with the statutory regime for public participation in plan-making.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's order was within the scope of the court's powers under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as the inspector's planning judgment was clear and the only error was a failure to translate that judgment into the policy wording. The court's directions remedied this error without usurping the functions of the inspector or council, and further public participation or re-examination was unnecessary given the full prior process.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order of Patterson J. are upheld, requiring the inspector to recommend and the council to adopt Policy Bicester 13 with the specified modification.