Associated British Ports v Hampshire County Council & Ors [2008] EWHC 1540 (Admin) (04 July 2008)

Associated British Ports v Hampshire County Council & Ors [2008] EWHC 1540 (Admin) (04 July 2008)

The inspector's judgment that the Core Strategy was sound, despite not safeguarding Dibden Bay, was not irrational or unlawful. The inspector was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that existing wharf capacity sufficed and that safeguarding Dibden Bay was not required at this stage. The court should not interfere with the inspector's planning judgment absent legal error.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1540 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Associated British Ports; Defendant: Hampshire County Council; Defendant: New Forest National Park Authority; Defendant: Portsmouth City Council; Defendant: Southampton City Council; Defendant: Hampshire Minerals and Waste Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Local Development Documents, Minerals Planning, Judicial Review, Soundness of Core Strategy, Safeguarding of Wharfage, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Local Development Documents Minerals Planning Judicial Review Soundness of Core Strategy Safeguarding of Wharfage +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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Associated British Ports

Claimant

Hampshire County Council

Defendant

New Forest National Park Authority

Defendant

Portsmouth City Council

Defendant

Southampton City Council

Defendant

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy is unsound for failing to safeguard Dibden Bay as a potential site for a deep-water aggregate wharf.
  2. 2 Whether the Core Strategy complies with national and regional policy requirements for safeguarding wharfage for minerals importation.
  3. 3 Whether the inspector's decision on soundness was irrational or unlawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector's judgment that the Core Strategy was sound, despite not safeguarding Dibden Bay, was not irrational or unlawful. The inspector was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that existing wharf capacity sufficed and that safeguarding Dibden Bay was not required at this stage. The court should not interfere with the inspector's planning judgment absent legal error.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • No order for safeguarding Dibden Bay in the Core Strategy