Matthews, R (on the application of) v Tamworth Borough Council
The Council's deletion of the Bonehill site was unlawful due to misconstruing the Inspector's report, failing to consider relevant positive attributes, providing unsubstantiated reasons, and resulting in a significant shortfall not in general conformity with the Structure Plan. The refusal to hold a further inquiry was unfair and inadequately reasoned.
- Parties
- Claimant: Re Matthews; Respondent: Tamworth Borough Council
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 12 December 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- application granted
- Legal Topics
- Local Plan Modification, Employment Land Allocation, Public Inquiry, Structure Plan Conformity, Regional Spatial Strategy
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Re Matthews
Claimant
Tamworth Borough Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Council's deletion of the Bonehill site from the Local Plan was lawful
- 2 Whether the Council failed to take into account relevant considerations
- 3 Whether the Council provided clear and cogent reasons for not accepting the Inspector's recommendation
Ratio Decidendi
The Council's deletion of the Bonehill site was unlawful due to misconstruing the Inspector's report, failing to consider relevant positive attributes, providing unsubstantiated reasons, and resulting in a significant shortfall not in general conformity with the Structure Plan. The refusal to hold a further inquiry was unfair and inadequately reasoned.
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- Policies EMP1 and EMP2, together with the elements of the Proposals Map relating to policy EMP2, are quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment