Killian Garvey recently secured the dismissal of a residential development for 25 dwellings in Shropshire.
The appeal, determined by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, included a detailed discussion of the policies within Shropshire Council’s development plan. The Inspector accepted that there was some conflict with the development plan and that there was some impact upon the character and appearance of the area.
The most interesting feature of the case is that it revolved around the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The appellant’s position at the hearing was that the presumption applied even where there was conflict with the development plan and the plan was not absent, silent or out of date. Thus, the appellant contended that the presumption applied even outside the circumstances stipulated within paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework. That approach has seen support within Wychavon v SSCLG and Crown House Developments Ltd  EWHC 592 (Admin).
However, during the hearing itself the High Court handed down the judgment in East Staffordshire BC v SSCLG  EWHC 2973 (Admin), which presented an alternative interpretation of paragraph 14. This was highlighted to the Inspector by the Council, who became of the judgment during the hearing itself. Accordingly, the inspector received submissions in writing from the parties about this point. It was on this basis that the inspector refused consent.
To view a copy of the Appeal decision click here
Emotional deregulation and the use of anticipatory declarations in the Court of Protection
When is a settlement not full and final? Tomlins and the CCA
© Copyright 2021 Kings Chambers. All rights reserved.
Please click here to view our current guidelines