Image from Google Jackets

The Cheesecake Shop Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2009Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2009] EWHC 1748 (Admin), 20 July 2009. The case relates to the existence of evidence to justify the decision of a planning inspector. Cheesecake Shop Ltd (C) had applied for planning permission for a development to Nottingham City Council (N) which refused it. C's appeal was dismissed by a planning inspector. C applied to quash the decision of this planning inspector and for judicial review of another decision of the same inspector refusing the award of its costs for the planning permission. C's premises were located in a regeneration zone. C had applied to demolish part of these premises and replace it with a two-storey extension. This was refused for two reasons. The proposed development would not form part of a comprehensive redevelopment scheme. It would increase acquisition costs if needed to enter into this redevelopment scheme. C argued against these reasons. "Held": applications granted. The inspector had no evidence that the grant of planning permission would increase the costs of a comprehensive redevelopment. The weight attached to material considerations was insufficient or inadequate. Her decisions in regard to the planning permission and the costs are quashed. N should pay C's costs related to the proceedings.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 148107-2001

[2009] EWHC 1748 (Admin), 20 July 2009. The case relates to the existence of evidence to justify the decision of a planning inspector. Cheesecake Shop Ltd (C) had applied for planning permission for a development to Nottingham City Council (N) which refused it. C's appeal was dismissed by a planning inspector. C applied to quash the decision of this planning inspector and for judicial review of another decision of the same inspector refusing the award of its costs for the planning permission. C's premises were located in a regeneration zone. C had applied to demolish part of these premises and replace it with a two-storey extension. This was refused for two reasons. The proposed development would not form part of a comprehensive redevelopment scheme. It would increase acquisition costs if needed to enter into this redevelopment scheme. C argued against these reasons. "Held": applications granted. The inspector had no evidence that the grant of planning permission would increase the costs of a comprehensive redevelopment. The weight attached to material considerations was insufficient or inadequate. Her decisions in regard to the planning permission and the costs are quashed. N should pay C's costs related to the proceedings.