The claimants challnged the decision of the respondents to refuse permission for the development of former industrial land for residential puroposes. The permission had been refused on the basis of flood maps which the claimants said were inaccurate. Natural Resources Wales who had responsibility for them, accepted that the maps needed to be updated. The court was asked whether it was right to take into account changes anticipated through the effects of climate change. The Ministers had rejected the inspector’s report. The applicant said that this had been on the basis of a micalculation of the site.
Held: The challenge failed. In assessing the actual risk of flooding, the Minister was plainly entitled to take into account the thresholds set out in the policies. The claimants are really submitting that they did not have the opportunity to make representations on the fact that nothing had changed. What new would they have said? What was said to be fresh evidence merely confirmed that the position was as it had been before the inspector. Accordingly, it was not the case that the Minister was disposed to disagree with the inspector for that reason. There was no breach of the Rules.
 EWHC 3293 (Admin)
England and Wales
Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council SC 21-Mar-2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.517340