Flemming & Ors, R (on the application of) v Wiltshire Council & Anor [2015] EWHC 1260 (Admin) (05 May 2015)

Flemming & Ors, R (on the application of) v Wiltshire Council & Anor [2015] EWHC 1260 (Admin) (05 May 2015)

The officer reports, though imperfectly expressed, did not significantly mislead the committee about material matters. The effects of permanent residential development were considered, and all material considerations were before the committee. The legal test for misleading was not met; therefore, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1260 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: MR JA Flemming, Prof R Moody, Mrs J Todd and Mr R Todd (Oaksey Conservation Group); Defendant: Wiltshire Council; Interested Party: Oaksey Park Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 73 TCPA Applications, Officer Reports, Development Plan, National Planning Policy Framework, Permanent Residential Development, Holiday Lets, Material Considerations

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MR JA Flemming, Prof R Moody, Mrs J Todd and Mr R Todd (Oaksey Conservation Group)

Claimant

Wiltshire Council

Defendant

Oaksey Park Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Did Wiltshire Council misunderstand the scope of relevant planning issues under section 73 TCPA?
  2. 2 Should the application have been considered under section 73A TCPA?

Ratio Decidendi

The officer reports, though imperfectly expressed, did not significantly mislead the committee about material matters. The effects of permanent residential development were considered, and all material considerations were before the committee. The legal test for misleading was not met; therefore, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed