Alderney Estates Ltd. v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions & Anor

Alderney Estates Ltd. v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions & Anor

Paragraph 34 of PPG3 is a relevant factor to be balanced against the presumption in paragraph 32 when determining planning applications. The presumption in favour of brownfield sites is not absolute and must be considered in the context of ensuring sufficient housing land supply and avoiding prejudice to the development process. The Secretary of State's decision was flawed for failing to provide adequate reasons and evidence regarding the likelihood of further brownfield sites emerging, and for misapplying the relationship between paragraphs 32 and 34.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Alderney Estates Limited; Defendant/appellant: The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; Defendant: Fylde Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; matter remitted for redetermination
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (ppg3), Brownfield Vs Greenfield Development, Development Plan Policy, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (ppg3) Brownfield Vs Greenfield Development Development Plan Policy Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alderney Estates Limited

Claimant/respondent

The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

Defendant/appellant

Fylde Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction and application of PPG3, especially paragraphs 32 and 34, in determining planning applications for residential development on greenfield sites
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State erred in law by misapplying the presumption in favour of brownfield sites over greenfield sites
  3. 3 Whether paragraph 34 of PPG3 qualifies or balances the presumption in paragraph 32

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 34 of PPG3 is a relevant factor to be balanced against the presumption in paragraph 32 when determining planning applications. The presumption in favour of brownfield sites is not absolute and must be considered in the context of ensuring sufficient housing land supply and avoiding prejudice to the development process. The Secretary of State's decision was flawed for failing to provide adequate reasons and evidence regarding the likelihood of further brownfield sites emerging, and for misapplying the relationship between paragraphs 32 and 34.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; matter remitted for redetermination

Orders

  • The matter is remitted for determination and consideration in the light of the judgment below as clarified by this judgment.
  • The respondent's costs, agreed at £15,000, to be paid by the Secretary of State.