Rolling back from William Davis? A note on the significance of Dartford Borough Council v Secretary of State for DCLG
On 24 June 2014, Mrs Justice Patterson handed down judgment in the case of Dartford Borough Council. The case concerned a challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for an order quashing the decision of planning inspector O’Rourke allowing an appeal by developers Landhold Capital and granting outline permission for up to 40 dwellings, together with public open space, access and landscaping at Greenhithe.
The challenge was brought by the council on a number of grounds, one of which centred on the approach of the inspector to ‘sustainable development’. The claimant argued that before deciding whether paragraph 14 of the framework was engaged, the inspector ought to have made a preliminary finding on sustainability. This argument relied heavily upon the judgment of Lang J in William Davis Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Governments  EWHC 3058 (Admin)…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the No5 Chambers briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from No5 Chambers
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from No5 Chambers
A company can suffer a detriment under the Equality Act and so bring a claim for direct discrimination. Yet a company is impersonal, so how can that be?
Judge not convinced that the fact the Claimant was required to be on the premises meant sleeping was working.