D B Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd & Anor v Leeds City Council [2013] EWHC 2865 (Admin) (24 September 2013)

D B Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd & Anor v Leeds City Council [2013] EWHC 2865 (Admin) (24 September 2013)

Policies MINERALS 13 and 14 are unlawful insofar as they safeguard sites for canal wharf use without robust evidence of deliverability, contrary to NPPF 22, and the Inspector's reasons were inadequate. The five-year review mechanism does not cure the lack of evidence or reasoning. The sustainability appraisal was not unlawful as the NRWLP was a thematic plan and alternative uses were considered in other documents.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2865 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: DB 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 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Development Plans, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Sustainability Appraisal, National Planning Policy Framework, Local Development Framework, Environmental Assessment
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Development Plans Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Sustainability Appraisal National Planning Policy Framework +2 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DB Schenker Rail (UK) Ltd

Claimant

Towngate Estates Ltd

Claimant

Leeds City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether policies MINERALS 13 and 14 of the Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan (NRWLP) are unlawful for conflicting with NPPF 22 by safeguarding sites with no reasonable prospect of use for the protected purpose.
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's reasons for finding the policies sound were adequate and lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the sustainability appraisal failed to consider reasonable alternatives as required by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.

Ratio Decidendi

Policies MINERALS 13 and 14 are unlawful insofar as they safeguard sites for canal wharf use without robust evidence of deliverability, contrary to NPPF 22, and the Inspector's reasons were inadequate. The five-year review mechanism does not cure the lack of evidence or reasoning. The sustainability appraisal was not unlawful as the NRWLP was a thematic plan and alternative uses were considered in other documents.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Policies MINERALS 13 and 14 of the NRWLP quashed insofar as they relate to safeguarded wharves and possible wharf use on the claimants' sites.
  • No order to quash the sustainability appraisal.