The applicant sought to challenge by judicial review the decision of the respondent to grant to itself planning permission for the residential development of land. The land was designated fo removal from the green belt under a Draft Local Plan. The claimant owned a neighbouring site which it said had not been included in the consideration, and which would allow the authority to achieve the target set for new homes by central government. The authority said the objection as not as to the proposed development, but in reality as to the failure to grant permission to the claimant’s for their land.
Held: Although the applicant’s plan had not been presented to the Committee fairly, ‘on the facts, the deficiencies that I have identified could have had no effect on the decision of the Committee, for the reasons that I have given. In these circumstances I do not consider that they are deficiencies which could justify me quashing the decision.’
Judges:
Latham J
Citations:
[1996] EWHC Admin 375
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Stirk and others v Bridgnorth District Council CA 11-Oct-1996
Where a Council was both proposer and judge in respect of a planning application, the obligation to deal thoroughly, consistently and fairly with any objection was enhanced. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Local Government
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136923