Save Our Parkland Appeal Ltd. R (on the application of) v East Devon District Council

Save Our Parkland Appeal Ltd. R (on the application of) v East Devon District Council

The defendant had regard to the development plan and all material considerations, and exercised its planning judgment lawfully in granting permission. The LDF process was at an early stage and did not preclude determination of the application. There was no legitimate expectation preventing the grant of permission, and no error of law was established.

Parties
Claimant: Save Our Parkland Appeal Limited; Defendant: East Devon District Council; Interested Party: Axminster Carpets Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Planning Permission, Development Plan, Legitimate Expectation, Prematurity in Planning Applications
Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review of Planning Permission Development Plan Legitimate Expectation Prematurity in Planning Applications

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

Parties

Save Our Parkland Appeal Limited

Claimant

East Devon District Council

Defendant

Axminster Carpets Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of outline planning permission was unlawful for failure to comply with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the grant of permission unlawfully pre-empted the Local Development Framework process and breached legitimate expectation

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant had regard to the development plan and all material considerations, and exercised its planning judgment lawfully in granting permission. The LDF process was at an early stage and did not preclude determination of the application. There was no legitimate expectation preventing the grant of permission, and no error of law was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed