![AC-2024-LON-002558 - [2025] EWHC 2278 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Defendant’s submissions
Defendant’s submissions
Ms Nevin submitted that, properly construed, the comments from the Officer about a lack of detail in the Planning Statement were confined to details about the intended tomatillo business. She added that the Officer nevertheless felt able to reach a reliable conclusion about the nature of the business, relying upon the remainder of the Planning Statement and the other documents comprised in the Application.
Ms Nevin further submitted that there could be no suggestion of a failure by the Council to discharge its duty of sufficient enquiry under the principles of Secretary of State for Education v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014. The principles in Tameside could not be divorced from the general concept of irrationality, which the Claimant was a long way from demonstrating on the facts.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background Facts
- These Proceedings
- Ground 1 - unlawful conclusion that the agricultural unit in question was at least 5 hectares
- Defendant’s submissions
- Ground 2 - failure to require sufficient information to allow a lawful decision on the application to be made
- Defendant’s submissions
- Ground 3: failure to take account of the potential impact of the development on the Bayford Wood ancient woodland
- Defendant’s submissions
- Ground 4: failure to take account of the potential impact of the development on the setting of the Claimant’s listed building
- Defendant’s submissions
- Discussion and conclusions
- Ground 2
- Grounds 3 and 4
- Aarhus costs protection
- Conclusions