Ensign Group Ltd v The First Secretary of State

Ensign Group Ltd v The First Secretary of State

The Secretary of State failed to comply with the statutory requirement to give reasons for the reduction in housing numbers and to consider the claimant's representations, resulting in substantial prejudice. The proper course is to quash the erroneous figures in the Strategy to avoid conflict and uncertainty in the development plan hierarchy.

Parties
Claimant: Ensign Group Limited; Defendant: The First Secretary of State
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed; relevant policies quashed; costs to claimant.
Legal Topics
Regional Spatial Strategy, Statutory Interpretation, Procedural Fairness, Housing Allocation
Administrative Law Planning Law Regional Spatial Strategy Statutory Interpretation Procedural Fairness Housing Allocation

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

Parties

Ensign Group Limited

Claimant

The First Secretary of State

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State lawfully reduced the housing allocation for the Northampton Implementation Area from 31,500 to 30,000 dwellings in the published Strategy
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State complied with the procedural requirements under section 9 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, specifically the duty to give reasons for changes and to consider representations

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State failed to comply with the statutory requirement to give reasons for the reduction in housing numbers and to consider the claimant's representations, resulting in substantial prejudice. The proper course is to quash the erroneous figures in the Strategy to avoid conflict and uncertainty in the development plan hierarchy.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; relevant policies quashed; costs to claimant.

Orders

  • Quashing of all references to the figure of 30,000 dwellings for Northampton for the period 2001-2021 in the Strategy as set out in the schedule.
  • Claimant's costs to be paid by the defendant, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.