Holder, R (on the application of) v Gedling Borough Council & Ors

Holder, R (on the application of) v Gedling Borough Council & Ors

The Council did not err in law in its approach to material considerations, the use of undertakings was lawful and enforceable, and the EIA screening opinion was lawfully conducted. Only the second, amended decision notice should be quashed as the Council had no power to issue it after the original permission.

Parties
Claimant: Christopher James Holder; Defendant: Gedling Borough Council; Interested Party: Mr and Mrs John Charles-Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim for judicial review succeeds only to the extent that the second decision notice is quashed; all other grounds are rejected.
Legal Topics
Material Considerations in Planning, Green Belt Policy, Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Obligations and Conditions
Planning Law Administrative Law Material Considerations in Planning Green Belt Policy Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Obligations and Conditions

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher James Holder

Claimant

Gedling Borough Council

Defendant

Mr and Mrs John Charles-Jones

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council erred in law in its approach to material considerations in granting planning permission for a wind turbine in the Green Belt
  2. 2 Whether the use of undertakings rather than planning conditions was lawful and enforceable
  3. 3 Whether the Environmental Impact Assessment screening opinion was lawfully conducted

Ratio Decidendi

The Council did not err in law in its approach to material considerations, the use of undertakings was lawful and enforceable, and the EIA screening opinion was lawfully conducted. Only the second, amended decision notice should be quashed as the Council had no power to issue it after the original permission.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review succeeds only to the extent that the second decision notice is quashed; all other grounds are rejected.

Orders

  • The second, amended decision notice is quashed.
  • All other grounds of challenge are dismissed.