Cheshire East Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE LEWIS
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Environmental Law
- Planning Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an application to quash a decision by an inspector who allowed a planning appeal by Rowland Homes Limited, reversing Cheshire East Council's refusal of planning permission for a residential development. The Council contested the inspector's conclusions on housing land supply, sustainable development, and compliance with Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The court held that the inspector had properly assessed these issues and provided adequate reasons for his conclusions. Permission was granted to amend the claim form, but the inspector was found to have discharged his duties under regulation 9(5) of the Regulations. The claim was dismissed.
Judgment
Mr Justice Lewis :
INTRODUCTION
This is an application for an order pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) to quash a decision of 11 April 2014 of an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. By that decision, the inspector allowed an appeal by the 2 nd Defendant, Rowland Homes Limited, against the refusal of planning permission by the claimant, Cheshire East Council, and granted planning permission for 94 dwellings at Elworth Hall Farm, Dean Close, Sandbach.
In brief, the claimant contends firstly that the inspector failed lawfully to assess whether the claimant had a five-year supply of land for housing. Secondly, the claimant contends that the inspector failed lawfully to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in paragraphs 7 and 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”).
Thirdly, the claimant, in its skeleton argument, seeks permission to amend the grounds to contend that the inspector failed to comply with the duty imposed by regulation 9(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (“the Regulations”) to have regard to the provisions of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (“the Habitats Directive”). In particular, the claimant seeks to contend that the inspector failed to have to regard to the obligation imposed on the United Kingdom by Article 12 to establish a system of strict protection of certain species specified in the Annex to the Habitats Directive (referred to as European Protected Species) and to determine whether the conditions for a derogation specified in Article 16 of the Habitats Directive were satisfied.
THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Planning permission is required for development including the carrying on of building or other works or the making of a material change of use of land: see sections 55 and 57 of the 1990 Act. In considering an application for planning permission, the planning authority must have regard to the development plan and any other material considerations: see section 70 of the 1990 Act. Furthermore, planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise: see section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”). Where a planning authority refuses planning permission, the applic