![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
For the Council Ms Nevin responded by saying that the appraisal of the impact of the Works on “the surrounding area” and “any significant views” incorporated an assessment of impact on the listed building. The Gage was undeniably part of “the surrounding area” and so a benevolent reading of the Report showed that there had indeed been an assessment of the impact on the listed building as policy required.
Ms Nevin added, as with her response Ground 3, that to require more of the Council would be to unreasonably seek to replicate the level of detail required in a planning application.
- 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