Benacre Estates Co & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors [2009] EWHC 680 (Admin)

QBD (Admin) – 7 Apr 2009

The applicants applied to quash a decision letter in which an inspector granted planning permission with conditions for the construction and operation of two wind turbines and the associated infrastructure on land in Norfolk.

Held: in recognising non-compliance of parts of the interim local policy with national policy, the Planning Inspector was clearly correct as a matter of fact. In saying that he disregarded the policy requirements, the Inspector meant that he was not attaching any weight to those parts of the interim policy which were in conflict with national policy. Issues of weight to attach to a non-statutory policy were matters for the Inspector. Reading the decision letter as a whole, it was clear that what he was doing was looking, first, at the development plan and then weighing the other material considerations that he had identified. It was a classic example of the balance of judgment which was integral to a planning decision. The decision letter was of adequate clarity to the informed reader. The Inspector had a clear understanding of the policies and applied them to the development proposed. He then found that the objective that the policy matrix of the local plan and the interim local plan strove to achieve, namely preservation of the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, was not harmed to such an extent that the policies could not be overridden by other material considerations. The Inspector did not misdirect himself as to government policy. The key point was whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, the environmental impact of the development was capable of being addressed satisfactorily. The phrase "perceived conflict", used by the Inspector, was no more than another way of describing the balancing of the various factors that went into making the ultimate judgment.

For judgment, please visit: BAILII

Barbone & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport & Ors [2009] EWHC 463 (Admin)

QBD (Admin) – 13 Mar 2009

The claimants, representatives of "Stop Stansted Expansion", applied under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 288 to quash the decision made by the defendant Secretaries of State, whereby they allowed an appeal by the first interested parties against the decision to refuse planning permission for BAA's proposals to increase the capacity of Stansted Airport. Held: neither the planning inspector nor the Secretaries of State misinterpreted or misapplied national transport planning policy for air transport development. Both the inspector and the Secretaries of State approached the determination of the appeal in accordance with relevant policies as set out in Future of Air Transport White Paper, a material consideration which they were entitled to and did attach considerable weight. Nevertheless, they did so in the context of an overall approach to the determination of the appeal which was properly in accordance with established legal principles. Both the Inspector and the Secretaries of State gave proper effect to the commitments which the Government has made relating to the handling and determination of planning applications for air transport development enjoying policy support in the ATWP. Furthermore, there was no breach of the EIA Regulations 1999. It is clear that both the inspector and the Secretaries of State properly considered the environmental information relating to the estimated emissions from the proposal, and stated that they had done so. Lastly, both the inspector and the Secretaries of State explained clearly and properly their conclusions on the three core matters raised by the SSE that now underlie the claimants' core complaint. For judgment, please visit: BAILII For news story, please visit: BBC Website