D B Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd & Anor v Leeds City Council

D B Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd & Anor v Leeds City Council

The Inspector erred in law by concluding that MINERALS 13 and 14 were sound despite the lack of robust evidence for canal wharf safeguarding and the policies' inconsistency with NPPF 22, as they could result in long-term protection of sites with no reasonable prospect of the safeguarded use. The Sustainability Appraisal did not require duplication of alternative use consideration if addressed in related DPDs, and failure to consider 'doing nothing' was not a material deficiency.

Parties
Claimant: D B Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd; Claimant: Towngate Estates Ltd; Defendant: Leeds City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Development Plan Documents, Sustainability Appraisal, National Planning Policy Framework, Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Review
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Development Plan Documents Sustainability Appraisal National Planning Policy Framework Statutory Interpretation Judicial Review

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D B Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd

Claimant

Towngate Estates Ltd

Claimant

Leeds City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether policies MINERALS 13 and 14 in the NRWLP are consistent with NPPF 22 and national policy
  2. 2 Whether safeguarding of sites for canal wharf use is justified by robust evidence and deliverable
  3. 3 Whether the Sustainability Appraisal failed to consider reasonable alternatives as required by the 2004 Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in law by concluding that MINERALS 13 and 14 were sound despite the lack of robust evidence for canal wharf safeguarding and the policies' inconsistency with NPPF 22, as they could result in long-term protection of sites with no reasonable prospect of the safeguarded use. The Sustainability Appraisal did not require duplication of alternative use consideration if addressed in related DPDs, and failure to consider 'doing nothing' was not a material deficiency.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Policies MINERALS 13 and 14 quashed in so far as they relate to safeguarded wharves and possible wharf use on the Claimants' sites.
  • Claim dismissed on Ground 3 (Sustainability Appraisal).