Davison, R (on the application of) v Elmbridge Borough Council [2019] EWHC 1409 (Admin) (02 May 2019)

Davison, R (on the application of) v Elmbridge Borough Council [2019] EWHC 1409 (Admin) (02 May 2019)

Elmbridge Borough Council acted unlawfully by failing to take into account its previous decision that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on Green Belt openness when determining the second planning application. The principle of consistency required the Council to address the change in position, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1409 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Matthew Davison; Defendant: Elmbridge Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; decision quashed
Legal Topics
Consistency in Decision Making, Green Belt Policy, Material Considerations in Planning, Judicial Review of Planning Permissions
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Consistency in Decision Making Green Belt Policy Material Considerations in Planning Judicial Review of Planning Permissions

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Matthew Davison

Claimant

Elmbridge Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Elmbridge Borough Council acted unlawfully by failing to consider its previous planning judgment regarding the impact of a proposed development on Green Belt openness when granting a second planning permission after the first was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi

Elmbridge Borough Council acted unlawfully by failing to take into account its previous decision that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on Green Belt openness when determining the second planning application. The principle of consistency required the Council to address the change in position, and the absence of any explanation rendered the decision unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; decision quashed

Orders

  • The Council's decision to grant planning permission dated 26 April 2017 is quashed.