Harrison v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2009] EWHC 3382 (Admin) (16 December 2009)

Harrison v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2009] EWHC 3382 (Admin) (16 December 2009)

The Inspector was entitled to assess the suitability of the site for the proposed use on planning grounds, taking into account the history of odour complaints and the limitations of the pollution control regime, and did not err in law by not deferring entirely to the IPPC regime or by allegedly departing from expert consensus.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 3382 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Ian Frank Harrison; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Cheshire West and Chester Council (Successor to Vale Royal Borough Council)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Section 289 Appeal Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement Notice, Planning Permission, Pollution Control, Amenity Impact, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (ippc), Relationship Between Planning and Pollution Regimes
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Enforcement Notice Planning Permission Pollution Control Amenity Impact Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (ippc) +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Frank Harrison

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Cheshire West and Chester Council (Successor to Vale Royal Borough Council)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 289 Appeal Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in his approach to the relationship between the planning regime and the IPPC regime
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to follow or indicate departure from the consensus of expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to assess the suitability of the site for the proposed use on planning grounds, taking into account the history of odour complaints and the limitations of the pollution control regime, and did not err in law by not deferring entirely to the IPPC regime or by allegedly departing from expert consensus.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal under Section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is dismissed
  • Parties to agree the form of the order and costs; if not agreed, to attend court for determination