ArcelorMittal Kent Wire Limited, R (on the application of) v Medway Council

ArcelorMittal Kent Wire Limited, R (on the application of) v Medway Council

The planning permission, properly construed, did not permit primary Class E(g)(i) office use as the operative part incorporated the application, which was limited to E(g)(ii), E(g)(iii), B2, and B8 uses; the officers' advice to the Committee was not materially misleading; Policy ED1 was not misinterpreted; and the remote possibility of future residential use under permitted development rights was not a mandatory material consideration.

Parties
Claimant: ArcelorMittal Kent Wire Limited; Defendant: Medway Council; Interested Party: Peel L & P (Ports No.3) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; permission to apply for judicial review on ground 6(1) refused.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning Permissions, Development Plan Policy Compliance, Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Interpretation of Planning Permissions Development Plan Policy Compliance Material Considerations in Planning Decisions Judicial Review of Planning Decisions

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ArcelorMittal Kent Wire Limited

Claimant

Medway Council

Defendant

Peel L & P (Ports No.3) Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning permission granted by Medway Council unlawfully permitted uses not applied for, specifically Class E(g)(i) office use
  2. 2 Whether the Council's officers materially misled the Planning Committee regarding the effect of condition 27 on B2/B8 uses
  3. 3 Whether the Council misinterpreted or unlawfully applied Policy ED1 of the Medway Local Plan

Ratio Decidendi

The planning permission, properly construed, did not permit primary Class E(g)(i) office use as the operative part incorporated the application, which was limited to E(g)(ii), E(g)(iii), B2, and B8 uses; the officers' advice to the Committee was not materially misleading; Policy ED1 was not misinterpreted; and the remote possibility of future residential use under permitted development rights was not a mandatory material consideration.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; permission to apply for judicial review on ground 6(1) refused.