Garner & Ors v Elmbridge Borough Council & Ors

Garner & Ors v Elmbridge Borough Council & Ors

Elmbridge Borough Council complied with its statutory duty under s66 by paying special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of Hampton Court Palace and Bridge, even though the statutory language was not expressly cited; the Sequential and Exception Tests for flood risk were lawfully applied given the site-specific nature of the development; the reasons for permission were legally adequate, but the omission of a summary of relevant policies was a minor breach not warranting relief.

Parties
Claimant: Keith Garner; Claimant: Keith Garner Limited; Claimant: Gerald McAully; Defendant: Elmbridge Borough Council; 1st Interested Party: Gladedale Group Limited; 2nd Interested Party: Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Permission granted on setting and policy points, but relief refused; permission refused on flood plain point.
Legal Topics
Listed Building Setting, Planning Permission, Flood Risk Assessment, Sequential and Exception Test, Statutory Duty Under S66, Development Plan Policies, Reasons for Decision
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Listed Building Setting Planning Permission Flood Risk Assessment Sequential and Exception Test Statutory Duty Under S66 +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Garner

Claimant

Keith Garner Limited

Claimant

Gerald McAully

Claimant

Elmbridge Borough Council

Defendant

Gladedale Group Limited

1st Interested Party

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd

2nd Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Elmbridge Borough Council complied with its statutory duty under s66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of Hampton Court Palace and Bridge
  2. 2 Whether the Council lawfully applied the Sequential and Exception Tests for development in a flood plain under PPS 25
  3. 3 Whether the reasons for granting planning permission and summary of relevant policies were legally adequate

Ratio Decidendi

Elmbridge Borough Council complied with its statutory duty under s66 by paying special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of Hampton Court Palace and Bridge, even though the statutory language was not expressly cited; the Sequential and Exception Tests for flood risk were lawfully applied given the site-specific nature of the development; the reasons for permission were legally adequate, but the omission of a summary of relevant policies was a minor breach not warranting relief.

Court Disposition

Permission granted on setting and policy points, but relief refused; permission refused on flood plain point.

Orders

  • No relief granted; no order for reconsideration or quashing of planning permission.