Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1543 (12 September 2019)

Gladman Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1543 (12 September 2019)

The inspector lawfully assessed the air quality impacts based on the evidence before him, was not required to assume imminent compliance with the Air Quality Directive, properly exercised planning judgment regarding mitigation, was not obliged to consider a 'Grampian' condition unprompted, and afforded procedural fairness throughout.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 1543
Parties
Appellant: Gladman Developments Ltd.; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Swale Borough Council; Third Respondent: CPRE Kent
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Planning Appeal Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Air Quality, Planning Permission, Mitigation Measures, Procedural Fairness, National Planning Policy Framework, Air Quality Directive
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Air Quality Planning Permission Mitigation Measures Procedural Fairness National Planning Policy Framework +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gladman Developments Ltd.

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Swale Borough Council

Second Respondent

CPRE Kent

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Planning Appeal Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the inspector lawfully assess the likely effects of the proposed housing development on air quality?
  2. 2 Did the inspector misunderstand the ClientEarth judgment and relevant policy in the NPPF?
  3. 3 Did the inspector properly consider mitigation measures and the possibility of a 'Grampian' condition?

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector lawfully assessed the air quality impacts based on the evidence before him, was not required to assume imminent compliance with the Air Quality Directive, properly exercised planning judgment regarding mitigation, was not obliged to consider a 'Grampian' condition unprompted, and afforded procedural fairness throughout.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No planning permission granted for either proposed development
  • Costs not awarded to appellant