Gladman Developments Ltd v Canterbury City Council

Gladman Developments Ltd v Canterbury City Council

The inspector misinterpreted and misapplied Policies H1 and H9 of the adopted local plan by treating them as neutral or silent on development outside specified locations, when in fact they formed a comprehensive strategy that implicitly excluded such development. The inspector failed to apply the statutory presumption in favour of the development plan under section 38(6), rendering the decision unlawful.

Parties
Appellant: Gladman Developments Ltd.; Respondent: Canterbury City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Administrative Court (planning Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Development Plan Policies, Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Local Plan Policy Application, Permissive Vs Restrictive Planning Policies
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Development Plan Policies Section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Local Plan Policy Application Permissive Vs Restrictive Planning Policies

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gladman Developments Ltd.

Appellant

Canterbury City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Administrative Court (planning Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the inspector misinterpret and misapply relevant policies of the development plan (Policies H1, H9, and SP4) when allowing the appeal for housing development?
  2. 2 Was the inspector's approach consistent with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004?

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector misinterpreted and misapplied Policies H1 and H9 of the adopted local plan by treating them as neutral or silent on development outside specified locations, when in fact they formed a comprehensive strategy that implicitly excluded such development. The inspector failed to apply the statutory presumption in favour of the development plan under section 38(6), rendering the decision unlawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The order of Dove J quashing the inspector's decision is upheld.