Renew Land Developments Ltd v Welsh Ministers

Renew Land Developments Ltd v Welsh Ministers

The inspector was entitled to proceed on the parties' common ground that the land was open space for the purposes of policy CFS/12. It was not irrational or an error of law for the inspector to find policy CFS/12 engaged and to weigh the fall-back position as a material consideration. The inspector's assessment of visual amenity and compliance with the development plan as a whole was lawful and procedurally fair.

Parties
Appellant: Renew Land Developments Limited; Respondent: Welsh Ministers; Interested Party: Conwy County Borough Council; Interested Party: Cartrefi Conwy Cyf
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Open Space Protection, Development Plan Compliance, Fall Back Position in Planning, Procedural Fairness, Visual Amenity, Material Considerations in Planning
Planning Law Administrative Law Open Space Protection Development Plan Compliance Fall Back Position in Planning Procedural Fairness Visual Amenity Material Considerations in Planning

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

Parties

Renew Land Developments Limited

Appellant

Welsh Ministers

Respondent

Conwy County Borough Council

Interested Party

Cartrefi Conwy Cyf

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the inspector erred in applying policy CFS/12 to land subject to potential exclusion by landowner
  2. 2 Whether the inspector failed to properly consider the fall-back position
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness arose regarding visual amenity

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector was entitled to proceed on the parties' common ground that the land was open space for the purposes of policy CFS/12. It was not irrational or an error of law for the inspector to find policy CFS/12 engaged and to weigh the fall-back position as a material consideration. The inspector's assessment of visual amenity and compliance with the development plan as a whole was lawful and procedurally fair.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Inspector's decision reinstated