Whitby v Secretary for Transport & Ors

Whitby v Secretary for Transport & Ors

The inspector and Secretaries of State lawfully applied the statutory duties and national policy, properly assessed the necessity of the harm to heritage assets, reasonably concluded that Option 15 was not a reasonable alternative due to its adverse impact on regeneration, and gave adequate reasons for their decisions. There was no error of law.

Parties
Appellant: Mark Whitby; 1st Respondent: Secretary of State for Transport; 2nd Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; 3rd Respondent: Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Statutory Challenge and Judicial Review (planning/administrative Law) / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Listed Buildings Consent, Conservation Areas, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Statutory Duties Under Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Assessment of Alternatives in Planning, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Law Listed Buildings Consent Conservation Areas National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Statutory Duties Under Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Assessment of Alternatives in Planning +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Whitby

Appellant

Secretary of State for Transport

1st Respondent

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

2nd Respondent

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Challenge and Judicial Review (planning/administrative Law) / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector and Secretaries of State lawfully applied statutory duties under sections 16, 66, and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether government policy in paragraphs 132 and 133 of the NPPF was correctly understood and applied
  3. 3 Whether the assessment of Option 15 as an alternative alignment was lawful and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector and Secretaries of State lawfully applied the statutory duties and national policy, properly assessed the necessity of the harm to heritage assets, reasonably concluded that Option 15 was not a reasonable alternative due to its adverse impact on regeneration, and gave adequate reasons for their decisions. There was no error of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed; decisions of the Secretaries of State upheld; no error of law found in the application of statutory duties or national policy.