Mansell vTonbridge And Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 (08 September 2017)

Mansell vTonbridge And Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 (08 September 2017)

The council lawfully interpreted and applied Class Q of the GPDO, was entitled to conclude there was a real prospect of fallback development, and did not misapply the presumption in favour of sustainable development; the officer's report was not materially misleading and the planning judgment was lawfully exercised.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 1314
Parties
Appellant: Michael Mansell; Respondent: Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council; Interested Party: Croudace Portland; Interested Party: The East Malling Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Permitted Development Rights, Fallback Position in Planning, Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development, Interpretation of GPDO Class Q, Material Considerations in Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Permitted Development Rights Fallback Position in Planning Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Interpretation of GPDO Class Q Material Considerations in 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Mansell

Appellant

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council

Respondent

Croudace Portland

Interested Party

The East Malling Trust

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Appeal From Administrative Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the council correctly interpreted and lawfully applied Class Q of the GPDO
  2. 2 Whether the council was entitled to accept there was a real prospect of fallback development being implemented
  3. 3 Whether the council misunderstood or misapplied the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the NPPF

Ratio Decidendi

The council lawfully interpreted and applied Class Q of the GPDO, was entitled to conclude there was a real prospect of fallback development, and did not misapply the presumption in favour of sustainable development; the officer's report was not materially misleading and the planning judgment was lawfully exercised.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Garnham J. dismissing the claim for judicial review is upheld
  • No order as to costs against interested parties who did not appear