Moulton Parish Council and Another (Joint Claimants) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Forest Heath District Council (First Interested Party) Newmarket Horsemen's Group (Second Interested Party)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Gilbart |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 1047 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/5130/2016 |
| Date | 09 May 2017 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2017] EWHC 1047 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Gilbart
CO/5130/2016
The Claimant did not attend and was not represented
The Defendant did not attend and was not represented
I am handing down judgment in which the Claimant succeeded on grounds 1 and 2. The order is in the following terms, that the Claimant's application is granted and the decision letter of the Defendant dated 31 August 2016 is quashed; secondly, the Defendant pay the Claimant's costs on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed; and third, the Second Interested Party's application for permission to appeal is refused. I am going to say a little about that.
The Second Interested Party has applied for permission to appeal on the following grounds:
Ground 1
It is argued that I have made two errors of law:
(a) I have required the Secretary of State to say that the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 14(2) was engaged. It is contended that that was unnecessary and is excessive.
(b) I have required the Secretary of State to state what the outcome was of the tilted balance exercise. It is said that the Secretary of State was entitled to treat it as one exercise.
It is also argued that I was wrong to place any weight on the Secretary of State's incomplete reference to the Inspector's eighth main consideration.
It is argued that my approach requires greater particularity than is accepted in what is referred to as the "established approach".
Ground 2
It is contended that the fact that the Newmarket Horsemen's Group was attacking his previous decision would have been obvious to the Secretary of State, which deprived him of the need to refer to it. It is argued that the informed reader would have been aware of the reasons why the Secretary of State was departing from his own decision, and argued that the effect of policy DM48 was a new consideration.
It is then argued that the approach adopted by the judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baroness Cuberlege of Newick and Another v Secrtary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another
...... (2) Patrick Cumberlege Claimants and (1) Secrtary of State for ... by Irwin Mitchell LLP ) for the Second Defendant . The First Defendant did not appear ... 1990 Act ") to quash a decision of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government ... of the local planning authority, Lewes District Council, refusing it planning permission. The ...Baroness Cumberlege has been a parish, district and county councillor representing the ... a zone established to protect the Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area (" SPA ") and Special ... Lewes District Local Plan – Part 1 – Joint Core Strategy ("the JCS" ) on May 11 th 2016. ... "10.48 There was no suggestion from any party that any relevant policy other than Policy CT1 ...[2015] EWHC 655 (Admin) at [88]–[101]; Moulton Parish Council v Secretary of State for ...No party interested in the development of either site would have had ..., the Secretary of State might call in a group of applications or appeals for determination by ......