JS Bloor (Wilmslow) Ltd. & Ors v First Secretary of State

JS Bloor (Wilmslow) Ltd. & Ors v First Secretary of State

There was no legitimate expectation, procedural unfairness, or departure from policy requiring further public examination or meetings before the Secretary of State made changes to RPG13. The procedural framework in PPG11 was followed, written representations were sufficient, and the Secretary of State's reasons for policy changes were adequate and rational. The policies were not irrational or inconsistent.

Parties
Claimant: JS Bloor (Wilmslow) Limited; Claimant: George Wimpey UK Limited; Claimant: Linden Homes Northwest Limited; Claimant: Morris Homes (North) Limited; Claimant: Peel Investments (North) Limited; Claimant: Redrow Homes (Lancashire) Limited; Claimant: Redrow Homes (Northwest) Limited; Claimant: Westbury Homes (Holdings) Limited; Defendant: First Secretary of State
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Planning Policy, Regional Planning Guidance
Administrative Law Planning Law Legitimate Expectation Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Planning Policy Regional Planning Guidance

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JS Bloor (Wilmslow) Limited

Claimant

George Wimpey UK Limited

Claimant

Linden Homes Northwest Limited

Claimant

Morris Homes (North) Limited

Claimant

Peel Investments (North) Limited

Claimant

Redrow Homes (Lancashire) Limited

Claimant

Redrow Homes (Northwest) Limited

Claimant

Westbury Homes (Holdings) Limited

Claimant

First Secretary of State

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State breached a legitimate expectation by failing to reconvene the Panel or hold further meetings before making major changes to Regional Planning Guidance (RPG13) policies.
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State acted contrary to his own policy or was procedurally unfair in making significant changes without further public scrutiny.
  3. 3 Whether the reasons given for changes to policy UR4 were adequate or irrational.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no legitimate expectation, procedural unfairness, or departure from policy requiring further public examination or meetings before the Secretary of State made changes to RPG13. The procedural framework in PPG11 was followed, written representations were sufficient, and the Secretary of State's reasons for policy changes were adequate and rational. The policies were not irrational or inconsistent.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed