Lucas (Save Diggle Action Group)), R (On the Application Of) v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

Lucas (Save Diggle Action Group)), R (On the Application Of) v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

The council unlawfully directed its planning committee to disregard the alternative Uppermill site as a material consideration, when it was in fact obviously relevant and should have been weighed against the harm to the heritage asset. This misdirection invalidated the grant of planning permission.

Parties
Claimant: Keith Lucas (on behalf of Save Diggle Action Group); Defendant: Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council; First Interested Party: Secretary of State for Education; Second Interested Party: WRT Developments Limited; Third Interested Party: Unity Partnership
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; planning permissions quashed
Legal Topics
Material Considerations in Planning, Alternative Sites in Planning Applications, Heritage Asset Protection, Environmental Impact Assessment, Public Consultation Requirements
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Material Considerations in Planning Alternative Sites in Planning Applications Heritage Asset Protection Environmental Impact Assessment Public Consultation Requirements

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Lucas (on behalf of Save Diggle Action Group)

Claimant

Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

Defendant

Secretary of State for Education

First Interested Party

WRT Developments Limited

Second Interested Party

Unity Partnership

Third Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the council failed to consider the alternative Uppermill site as a material consideration under section 70(2)(c) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the consultation process was legally adequate
  3. 3 Whether the council's approach to heritage and Green Belt harm was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The council unlawfully directed its planning committee to disregard the alternative Uppermill site as a material consideration, when it was in fact obviously relevant and should have been weighed against the harm to the heritage asset. This misdirection invalidated the grant of planning permission.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; planning permissions quashed

Orders

  • The resolution to grant permission for the construction of the school and the three other issued permissions are quashed.
  • The court will hear counsel on consequential matters.