Fraser, R (On the Application Of) v Shropshire Council

Fraser, R (On the Application Of) v Shropshire Council

The Council lawfully exercised its planning judgment under Policy MD2, was entitled to balance a quantitative shortfall in open space against the quality and other benefits of the scheme, and to grant permission even if there was a technical breach of the policy. There was no material inconsistency with the previous...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Paula Fraser; Defendant: Shropshire Council; Interested Party: The Wrekin Housing Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Substantive Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claims for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Development Plan Policy Interpretation, Public Sector Equality Duty (psed), Direct and Indirect Discrimination, Judicial Review Grounds, Consistency in Decision Making
Planning Law Equality Law Administrative Law Planning Permission Development Plan Policy Interpretation Public Sector Equality Duty (psed) Direct and Indirect Discrimination Judicial Review Grounds +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paula Fraser

Claimant

Shropshire Council

Defendant

The Wrekin Housing Trust

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Substantive Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of planning permission for extra care residential development with less than 30sqm open space per person was lawful under Policy MD2
  2. 2 Whether the Council acted inconsistently with its previous refusal of a similar application
  3. 3 Whether the Council failed to take into account material considerations, made material errors of fact, or acted irrationally

Ratio Decidendi

The Council lawfully exercised its planning judgment under Policy MD2, was entitled to balance a quantitative shortfall in open space against the quality and other benefits of the scheme, and to grant permission even if there was a technical breach of the policy. There was no material inconsistency with the previous refusal, no failure to take into account material considerations, no material error of fact, and no irrationality. The Council did not discriminate on grounds of age or disability, and complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty. Even if there had been any error in the earlier decision, the outcome would not have been substantially different given the lawful grant of the...

Court Disposition

Claims for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted on all grounds
  • Claims for judicial review (JR1 and JR2) dismissed on the merits