Renew Land Developments Ltd v Welsh Ministers & Ors [2019] EWHC 742 (Admin) (26 March 2019)

Renew Land Developments Ltd v Welsh Ministers & Ors [2019] EWHC 742 (Admin) (26 March 2019)

The Inspector erred in law and acted irrationally by applying policy CFS/12 to land that was not genuinely public open space due to the landowner's ability and intention to fence it off at will, rendering the policy conflict illusory. The Inspector's reasoning regarding the fall-back position was incoherent and procedurally unfair, as it failed to address the practical reality that the open space could be lost regardless of the development. The decision was therefore quashed.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 742 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Renew Land Developments Limited; Defendant: Welsh Ministers; Interested Party: Conwy County Borough Council; Interested Party: Cartrefi Conwy Cyf
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Section 288 Challenge
Outcome
Claim allowed; Inspector's decision quashed
Legal Topics
Open Space Designation, Planning Policy Interpretation, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions, Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Development Plan Priority, Procedural Fairness in Planning Appeals
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Open Space Designation Planning Policy Interpretation Judicial Review of Planning Decisions Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Development Plan Priority +1 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Renew Land Developments Limited

Claimant

Welsh Ministers

Defendant

Conwy County Borough Council

Interested Party

Cartrefi Conwy Cyf

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Section 288 Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Planning Inspector erred in law in applying policy CFS/12 to land not subject to a formal agreement for public open space
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's reasoning regarding the fall-back position (fencing of land) was irrational or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to conduct the required planning balance under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector erred in law and acted irrationally by applying policy CFS/12 to land that was not genuinely public open space due to the landowner's ability and intention to fence it off at will, rendering the policy conflict illusory. The Inspector's reasoning regarding the fall-back position was incoherent and procedurally unfair, as it failed to address the practical reality that the open space could be lost regardless of the development. The decision was therefore quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Inspector's decision quashed

Orders

  • The decision of the Planning Inspector dated 28 August 2018 is quashed.