Cranage Parish Council & Ors v First Secretary of State & Ors

Cranage Parish Council & Ors v First Secretary of State & Ors

The Secretaries of State's interpretation of policy PS1 was one the words could bear; they considered alternatives, assessed adverse impacts, gave adequate reasons, and struck a fair balance under human rights law. No public law error or breach of human rights was established. The claim is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Cranage Parish Council; Claimant: James Bennion; Claimant: John Oakley; Claimant: Lillian Worthington; Defendant: First Secretary of State; Defendant: Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Defendant: Scottish Power UK PLC; Defendant: Scottish Power Gas Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (statutory Challenge Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Plan Interpretation, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Human Rights (article 8 ECHR, A1 P1), Statutory Challenge, Reasons for Decisions
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Development Plan Interpretation Planning Permission Judicial Review Human Rights (article 8 Echr, A1 P1) Statutory Challenge +1 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cranage Parish Council

Claimant

James Bennion

Claimant

John Oakley

Claimant

Lillian Worthington

Claimant

First Secretary of State

Defendant

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

Defendant

Scottish Power UK PLC

Defendant

Scottish Power Gas Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (statutory Challenge Under S.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretaries of State misinterpreted or misapplied the development plan (policy PS1)
  2. 2 Whether alternatives to the proposed development were properly considered
  3. 3 Whether adverse impacts (including cumulative impacts) were properly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretaries of State's interpretation of policy PS1 was one the words could bear; they considered alternatives, assessed adverse impacts, gave adequate reasons, and struck a fair balance under human rights law. No public law error or breach of human rights was established. The claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Claimants to pay costs of the First and Second Defendants, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed