Savage v Mansfield District Council

Savage v Mansfield District Council

The claim is unarguable on all grounds. The Defendant adequately considered Natural England’s advice and followed a risk-based approach as required. The committee was not misled, and the Rufford Incinerator decision was properly distinguished. No new material considerations arose requiring referral back to committee. Consideration of the Section 106 indemnity was lawful and not a reason for granting permission. The Section 106 obligation, even if technically defective, could be lawfully replicated by other means. The claim was not brought promptly, and no breach of EU law or the 2010 Regulations occurred.

Parties
Claimant: Savage; Defendant: Mansfield District Council; Interested Party: The Lindhurst Group
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Application (renewed Oral Hearing)
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Special Protection Areas, Legitimate Expectation, Material Considerations, Section 106 Agreements, Promptness in Judicial Review
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Judicial Review Planning Permission Special Protection Areas Legitimate Expectation Material Considerations +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 7 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Savage

Claimant

Mansfield District Council

Defendant

The Lindhurst Group

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Application (renewed Oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant failed to adopt a risk-based approach to assessing ecological impacts as advised by Natural England
  2. 2 Whether the planning committee was significantly misled as to Natural England’s advice
  3. 3 Whether the Rufford Incinerator decision was erroneously distinguished

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is unarguable on all grounds. The Defendant adequately considered Natural England’s advice and followed a risk-based approach as required. The committee was not misled, and the Rufford Incinerator decision was properly distinguished. No new material considerations arose requiring referral back to committee. Consideration of the Section 106 indemnity was lawful and not a reason for granting permission. The Section 106 obligation, even if technically defective, could be lawfully replicated by other means. The claim was not brought promptly, and no breach of EU law or the 2010 Regulations occurred.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • No permission to proceed to substantive hearing