TV HARRISON CIC v LEEDS CITY COUNCIL

TV HARRISON CIC v LEEDS CITY COUNCIL

The Defendant erred in law by failing to have regard to policy N6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan, a relevant part of the development plan, when granting itself outline planning permission for housing on a protected playing field. The overlap with NPPF paragraph 99 and the SAP site requirement did not obviate the need to consider policy N6, which imposed distinct and more demanding requirements. The failure to consider policy N6 was not cured by alternative reasoning or the conditions imposed. The other grounds advanced by the Claimant were not made out.

Parties
Claimant: TV Harrison CIC; Defendant: Leeds City Council; Interested Party: Leeds Schools’ Sports Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application and Renewed Permission Application
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; planning permission quashed.
Legal Topics
Development Plan, Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Statutory Interpretation, Material Considerations, Duty to Give Reasons
Planning Law Administrative Law Development Plan Judicial Review Planning Permission Statutory Interpretation Material Considerations Duty to Give Reasons

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TV Harrison CIC

Claimant

Leeds City Council

Defendant

Leeds Schools’ Sports Association

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application and Renewed Permission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant failed to have regard to policy N6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan in granting itself outline planning permission for housing on a protected playing field.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant failed to give adequate reasons for its decision.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant failed to have regard to material considerations or acted irrationally in relation to NPPF paragraph 99(a).

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant erred in law by failing to have regard to policy N6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan, a relevant part of the development plan, when granting itself outline planning permission for housing on a protected playing field. The overlap with NPPF paragraph 99 and the SAP site requirement did not obviate the need to consider policy N6, which imposed distinct and more demanding requirements. The failure to consider policy N6 was not cured by alternative reasoning or the conditions imposed. The other grounds advanced by the Claimant were not made out.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; planning permission quashed.

Orders

  • The Defendant’s decision granting outline planning permission is quashed.