Gibson, R (On the Application Of) v Waverley Borough Council

Gibson, R (On the Application Of) v Waverley Borough Council

The Defendant lawfully concluded that the proposed educational use with extensions was the only viable use to preserve Undershaw, a heritage asset, and properly balanced the less than substantial harm against significant public benefits. The statutory and policy frameworks were correctly applied, and the Committee's planning judgment was not irrational or unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: John Michael Gibson; Defendant: Waverley Borough Council; Interested Party: DFN Charitable Foundation; Interested Party: Historic England
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Listed Buildings, Optimum Viable Use, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Heritage Asset, Development Plan, Public Benefits, Statutory Framework
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Law Listed Buildings Optimum Viable Use Planning Permission Judicial Review Heritage Asset +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Michael Gibson

Claimant

Waverley Borough Council

Defendant

DFN Charitable Foundation

Interested Party

Historic England

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant failed to consider the optimum viable use of a heritage asset as required by law and policy
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant lawfully balanced heritage harm against public benefits under the NPPF
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant failed to apply the statutory development plan test under section 38(6)

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant lawfully concluded that the proposed educational use with extensions was the only viable use to preserve Undershaw, a heritage asset, and properly balanced the less than substantial harm against significant public benefits. The statutory and policy frameworks were correctly applied, and the Committee's planning judgment was not irrational or unlawful.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed