Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
No irrationality or unreasonableness attaching to decision to refuse planning permission for development of district centre
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in planning and development judicial review proceedings, refuses to quash planning board's decision, on appeal from a decision of a local authority, to refuse to grant planning permission for development by the applicant of a district centre with related development, on the grounds that: there is no irrationality or unreasonableness attaching to the board's decision where it had very extensive materials before it when it made its decision to refuse permission on several grounds connected with a consideration of the overall application and whether or not it was in accordance with proper planning and development.
Judicial review - application to quash planning board's decision to refuse planning permission for district centre development - whether decision irrational and flies in the face of reason and common sense - three planning applications at proposed site - planning authority's refusal based on three reasons - breach of primary zoning objectives - quantum of proposed retail unjustified at time given levels of vacancy in locality - overall visual impact of building unit seriously injure visual amenities of area - appeal to planning board and board's refusal on similar grounds - planning and development legislative regime - mandatory local area development plans - county development plan - retail planning guidelines for planning authorities - applicable zoning objectives at site - local area plan details - planning board's inspector's report - recommendation of refusal for planning permission based on similar reasoning to local authority's initial decision - recommendation that refusal also reference new land use zoning objectives in addition to the County retail strategy - proposed surface car parking contrary to proper and sustainable development of area - applicant's arguments as contained in pleadings before court - whether manifestly unreasonable to state that a district centre in the general location is a development objective but then to refuse permission on grounds that the development meets the definition of a district centre - whether decision irrational given nearby site's zoning objectives - whether board wrongly failed to exercise its discretion to grant permission notwithstanding a contravention of a zoning objective - whether assessment of whether proposed development is consistent with proper planning is a matter of planning judgment and discretion and only amenable to judicial review on very limited grounds - due deference to expert body - applicant's high burden of proof - whether a misunderstanding of legal effect of zoning within plan - legal test of irrationality - board to only depart from local area plan for bona fide reasons which accord with proper planning - very extensive information before board - no necessary dissonance between first and second reasons refusing permission - board's power to exercise grant of permission despite material breach of development plan was not engaged given board's overall reasoning on the application - no general inherent legal rights to carry out any particular development - reliefs refused
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
