Moore v Somerset Council [2023] EWHC 2544 (KB) (12 October 2023)

Moore v Somerset Council [2023] EWHC 2544 (KB) (12 October 2023)

The correct interpretation of CP6 is that at least 50% of the 11,850m² town centre use requirement (excluding retail) must be delivered within Saxonvale. The planning permission granted failed to meet this requirement, as only 4,181m² was provided, and no lawful reason was given for departing from the development...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2544 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Damon Moore; Defendant: Somerset Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; planning permission quashed.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Local Plan Policy, Judicial Review of Planning Permission, Town Centre Redevelopment, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Local Plan Policy Judicial Review of Planning Permission Town Centre Redevelopment Statutory Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Damon Moore

Claimant

Somerset Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of Core Policy 6 (CP6) of the Mendip District Council's Local Plan Part 1 regarding the required provision of flexible office/studio space within Saxonvale as part of town centre redevelopment in Frome.
  2. 2 Whether the planning officer and council erred in law in granting outline planning permission for the Acorn site by misapplying CP6.

Ratio Decidendi

The correct interpretation of CP6 is that at least 50% of the 11,850m² town centre use requirement (excluding retail) must be delivered within Saxonvale. The planning permission granted failed to meet this requirement, as only 4,181m² was provided, and no lawful reason was given for departing from the development plan. The planning officer and council erred in law in their interpretation and application of CP6.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; planning permission quashed.

Orders

  • The planning permission granted on 30th August 2022 is quashed.