Bristol City Council, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Ors [2004] EWHC 1934 (Admin) (19 July 2004)

Bristol City Council, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Ors [2004] EWHC 1934 (Admin) (19 July 2004)

The Inspector was entitled to exercise planning judgment in concluding the site was not protected open space under NE1 (IV), that lack of a PPG17 assessment was not fatal, and that the site was previously-developed land suitable for residential development.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1934 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Bristol City Council; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: Edward Ware Urban Renewal Limited; Third Defendant: Petherton Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Open Space Policy, Brownfield Land, Amenity Value, Development Plan Policy
Planning Law Administrative Law Planning Permission Open Space Policy Brownfield Land Amenity Value Development Plan Policy

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bristol City Council

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

Edward Ware Urban Renewal Limited

Second Defendant

Petherton Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in applying PPG17 and PPG3 guidance to the site
  2. 2 Whether the site should be protected as open space under Local Plan policy NE1 (IV)
  3. 3 Whether failure to conduct an assessment under PPG17 paragraph 10 was fatal to the planning appeals

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector was entitled to exercise planning judgment in concluding the site was not protected open space under NE1 (IV), that lack of a PPG17 assessment was not fatal, and that the site was previously-developed land suitable for residential development.

Court Disposition

application refused