Fiske, R (On the Application Of) v Woodington Solar Ltd [2022] EWHC 1111 (Admin) (13 May 2022)

Fiske, R (On the Application Of) v Woodington Solar Ltd [2022] EWHC 1111 (Admin) (13 May 2022)

The planning authority was not legally required to consider or grapple with the potential incompatibility between the 2017 and 2021 permissions, as it was not a material consideration so obviously relevant as to require direct consideration. The responsibility for resolving any incompatibility rests with the developer, not the authority.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1111 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Chala Alice Fiske; Defendant: Test Valley Borough Council; Interested Party: Woodington Solar Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Incompatible Planning Permissions, Material Considerations in Planning Decisions, Judicial Review of Planning Authority Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Public Law Incompatible Planning Permissions Material Considerations in Planning Decisions Judicial Review of Planning Authority Decisions

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chala Alice Fiske

Claimant

Test Valley Borough Council

Defendant

Woodington Solar Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning authority erred in law by failing to consider incompatibility between the 2017 and 2021 planning permissions
  2. 2 Whether the authority was required to grapple with the consequences of granting an incompatible planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The planning authority was not legally required to consider or grapple with the potential incompatibility between the 2017 and 2021 permissions, as it was not a material consideration so obviously relevant as to require direct consideration. The responsibility for resolving any incompatibility rests with the developer, not the authority.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Challenge to the 2021 planning permission fails
  • Counsel to submit a draft order and written submissions on any unresolved points within 14 days