Jonathan Armstrong, R (on the application of) v Ashford Borough Council
[2023] EWHC 317 (Admin)
Ardleigh Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Tendring District Council
29 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 648 (Admin)
High Court
A parish council challenged a decision to build a huge warehouse near a protected area. The court ruled the council followed the rules, even if their report wasn't perfect, because the warehouse shouldn't harm the protected area significantly. The parish council has to pay some of the council's legal fees.
Key Facts
- •Ardleigh Parish Council challenged Tendring District Council's grant of planning permission to Flying Trade Group for a large distribution facility near the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
- •The development is approximately 9 hectares and includes a large warehouse (16-20m high, 105m wide, 170m deep).
- •The site is 1.2km from the AONB boundary.
- •Concerns centered on the development's impact on the AONB's setting (Ground 1) and its conformity with local planning policies on settlement growth (Ground 2).
Legal Principles
Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs. Development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts.
Paragraph 176, National Planning Policy Framework (2021)
Development outside settlement boundaries should be considered in relation to the pattern and scale of growth promoted through the settlement hierarchy and other relevant policies.
Policy SPL2, Tendring District Local Plan
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review refused.
The court found that the Council adequately considered the potential impacts on the AONB and relevant local policies. While some omissions were noted in the Officer's Report, these were not considered materially misleading given the lack of identified adverse impacts on the AONB itself, except for potentially mitigable lighting issues. The scale and location of the development were deemed a matter for the Council's planning judgment within the existing policy framework.
Claimant ordered to pay defendant's costs for acknowledgement of service and pre-action correspondence.
Defendant's attendance at the hearing was not considered exceptional enough to warrant cost recovery for that attendance; the claimant's initial lack of representation influenced the decision for an oral hearing.
Similar Cases
Sarah Moakes v Canterbury City Council
[2024] EWHC 1272 (Admin)
Protect Dunsfold Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1854 (Admin)
Cindy Jones, R (on the application of) v Cornwall Council
[2024] EWHC 2198 (Admin)
Anthony Ward v Torridge District Council
[2023] EWHC 2629 (KB)