Maxwell, R (on the application of) v Wiltshire Council

Maxwell, R (on the application of) v Wiltshire Council

The Council's committee had proper regard to the relevant statutory duties and policy guidance, including PPG 15, and was entitled to conclude that demolition and replacement of the building would enhance the conservation area. The officers’ report provided sufficient guidance, and the decision was not irrational or unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: Michael Maxwell; Defendant: Wiltshire Council; Interested Parties: Mr & Mrs Martin Walker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Conservation Area Consent, Demolition of Unlisted Buildings, Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (ppg 15), Statutory Interpretation, Local Authority Decision Making
Planning Law Administrative Law Conservation Area Consent Demolition of Unlisted Buildings Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (ppg 15) Statutory Interpretation Local Authority Decision Making

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Maxwell

Claimant

Wiltshire Council

Defendant

Mr & Mrs Martin Walker

Interested Parties

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council failed to have proper regard to PPG 15 in granting conservation area consent for demolition
  2. 2 Whether the Council failed to properly consider and conclude on compliance with PPG 15
  3. 3 Whether the Council's decision was irrational and contrary to the statutory purpose of the conservation area regime

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's committee had proper regard to the relevant statutory duties and policy guidance, including PPG 15, and was entitled to conclude that demolition and replacement of the building would enhance the conservation area. The officers’ report provided sufficient guidance, and the decision was not irrational or unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed