Salford Estates [No 2] Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Dalton Park Ltd and Others: Admn 19 Sep 2012

The court was asked whether the town of Peterlee could truly accommodate four large retail stores.
Held: The claim for review was rejected.
Richardson QC Judge said: ‘It is also a paradigm of the system of planning control in England and Wales that the exercise of the planning judgment is within the sole province of the planning authority (subject to appeal to the Secretary of State). The role of the court is simply to judge the legality of the planning process. The Administrative Court is not an appellate court in respect of the planning merits and will not countenance rehearsal and review of the planning arguments advanced before the planning committee. The arena for argument upon planning merits is the planning committee and not the court. I am very mindful that I must not stray into the arena of planning merits; for to do so would exceed my powers.’

Richardson QC Judge
[2012] EWHC 2512 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Salford Estates [No 2] Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Dalton Park Ltd and Others Admn 19-Sep-2012
The court was asked whether the town of Peterlee could truly accommodate four large retail stores.
Held: The claim for review was rejected.
Richardson QC Judge said: ‘It is also a paradigm of the system of planning control in England and . .

Cited by:
Cited – Salford Estates [No 2] Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Dalton Park Ltd and Others Admn 19-Sep-2012
The court was asked whether the town of Peterlee could truly accommodate four large retail stores.
Held: The claim for review was rejected.
Richardson QC Judge said: ‘It is also a paradigm of the system of planning control in England and . .
Cited – Estates and Agency Properties Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Barking and Dagenham and Another Admn 21-Dec-2012
The claimant sought judicial review of the decision of the respondent to grant planning permission to Tescos to extend their supermarket.
Held: Review was refused. The application succeeded on one of the four grounds claimed, but that defect . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.464849