“Erection of a 20 mega-watt biomass fuelled renewable energy plant with associated access, car parking, internal roads, canal side mooring and landscaping.”
“17. In the the Tesco case Lord Reed made another important point about development plans: Although a development plan has a legal status and legal effects, it is not analogous in its nature or purpose to a statute or a contract. As has often been observed, development plans are full of broad statements of policy, many of which may be mutually irreconcilable, so that in a particular case one must give way to another. In addition, many of the provisions of development plans are framed in language whose application to a given set of facts requires the exercise of judgment…” “18. This point has two consequencesthat are relevant to our case. First, we must not adopt a strained interpretation of the Local Plan in order to produce complete harmony between its constituent parts. Second, we must be wary of a suggested objective interpretation of one part of the Local Plan as having precedence over another. In a case in which different parts of the Local Plan point in different directions, it is for the planning authority to decide which policy should be given greater weight in relation to a particular decision. This, in my judgment, is established by the decision of Ouseley J in R oao Cummins v Camden LBC[2001] EWHC 1116 (Admin) to which Mr Dove also referred us. In that case Ouseley J said: "It may be necessary for a Council in a case where policies pull in different directions to decide which is the dominant policy: whether one policy compared to another is directly as opposed to tangentially relevant, or should be seen as the one to which the greater weight is required to be given."” (viii) The formulation of certain policies requires a purposive approach to their accordance with a proposal. The Cummins case at para 165. (ix) In R v Rochdale MBC Ex parte Milne[2000] EWHC 650 Sullivan J said: “47….The local planning authority should have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan as a whole, that is to say, to all of the provisions which are relevant to the application under consideration for the purpose of deciding whether a permission or refusal would be "in accordance with the plan". 48. It is not at all unusual for Development Plan policies to pull in different directions….In such cases there may be no clear cut answer to the question: "is this proposal in accordance with the plan?" The local planning authority has to make a judgment bearing in mind such factors as the importance of the policies which are complied with or infringed, and the extent of compliance or breach…. 49. In the light of that decision The City of Edinburgh case at page 1447. I regard as untenable the proposition that if there is a breach of any one policy in a Development Plan a proposed development cannot be said to be “in accordance with the plan”
“6. An application under section 288 is not an opportunity for a review of the planning merits of an Inspector's decision. An allegation that an Inspector's conclusion on the planning merits is Wednesbury perverse is, in principle, within the scope of a challenge under section 288, but the court must be astute to ensure that such challenges are not used as a cloak for what is, in truth, a rerun of the arguments on the planning merits. 7. In any case, where an expert tribunal is the fact finding body the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness is a difficult obstacle for an applicant to surmount. That difficulty is greatly increased in most planning cases because the Inspector is not simply deciding questions of fact, he or she is reaching a series of planning judgments…. See also AH v SSHD [2007] UKHL para 30. 8. Moreover, the Inspector's conclusions will invariably be based not merely upon the evidence heard at an inquiry or an informal hearing, or contained in written representations but, and this will often be of crucial importance, upon the impressions received on the site inspection. Against this background an applicant alleging an Inspector has reached a Wednesbury unreasonable conclusion on matters of planning judgment, faces a particularly daunting task….”
“36. The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the "principal important controversial issues", disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.”
“Applications for waste management facilities that have the potential to utilise biogas or energy from waste fired technologies will be required to provide combined heat and power unless it can be demonstrated this would prevent the development of waste management facilities that had the potential to deliver important waste infrastructure. In cases where an applicant considers that it would not be feasible to provide combined heat and power it will be the responsibility of the applicant to clearly demonstrate the reasons for this position.”
‘The data on wood waste, particularly on the amount going to landfill or informal markets, is not clear.’