JH And FW Green Ltd R (On the Application Of) v South Downs National Park Authority

JH And FW Green Ltd R (On the Application Of) v South Downs National Park Authority

The Officer's Report was sufficiently detailed, considered all relevant factors including local context and consultee responses, and correctly applied the tests under NPPF paragraphs 116 and 134. No viable alternative use was substantiated, and the proposal was not a 'major development' within the meaning of paragraph 116. The challenge fails.

Parties
Claimant: JH and FW Green Ltd; Defendant: South Downs National Park Authority; Interested Party: Home Grown Hotels Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent, National Parks, Major Development, Optimum Viable Use
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Law Planning Permission Listed Building Consent National Parks Major Development Optimum Viable Use

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JH and FW Green Ltd

Claimant

South Downs National Park Authority

Defendant

Home Grown Hotels Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Officer's Report failed to correctly apply the test for major development under NPPF paragraph 116
  2. 2 Whether the Officer misinterpreted the meaning of NPPF paragraph 134 regarding 'optimum viable use' and failed to consider whether existing residential use is the optimum viable use

Ratio Decidendi

The Officer's Report was sufficiently detailed, considered all relevant factors including local context and consultee responses, and correctly applied the tests under NPPF paragraphs 116 and 134. No viable alternative use was substantiated, and the proposal was not a 'major development' within the meaning of paragraph 116. The challenge fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed