Renfree v Mageean

Renfree v Mageean

The Inspector's failure to refer the screening direction back to the Secretary of State was not irrational, as there was no realistic prospect that the Secretary of State would have reached a different conclusion regarding the environmental impact of the proposed development, given the Inspector's finding of no detrimental impact on the World Heritage Site and the absence of any request to reconsider the screening direction.

Parties
Appellant: Gwendolyn Renfree; First Respondent: Daniel Mageean; Second Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Third Respondent: Cornwall Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Screening Direction, World Heritage Site, Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Judicial Review Screening Direction World Heritage Site +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gwendolyn Renfree

Appellant

Daniel Mageean

First Respondent

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Second Respondent

Cornwall Council

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector's failure to refer the screening direction back to the Secretary of State for reconsideration, following the inscription of the World Heritage Site, was irrational and thus unlawful under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's failure to refer the screening direction back to the Secretary of State was not irrational, as there was no realistic prospect that the Secretary of State would have reached a different conclusion regarding the environmental impact of the proposed development, given the Inspector's finding of no detrimental impact on the World Heritage Site and the absence of any request to reconsider the screening direction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the lower court quashing the Inspector's decision is set aside.