- Court upholds SoS’s refusal of consent for Chiswick tower against inspector’s recommendation (Starbones v SSHCLG)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What is the legal and policy background to the case?
- Decision-making under TCPA 1990, s 70(2)
- National Planning Policy Framework
- What is the factual background to the case?
- What did the court find?
- Ground 1—failure to have regard to the relative impact on heritage assets
- Ground 2—failure to understand and apply NPPF para 48 on emerging policies
- Case details
Planning analysis: In Starbones v SSHCLG, the Planning Court dismissed a challenge against the Secretary of State’s decision refusing consent for a mixed use 120 metre tower in Chiswick, in which he reached a different conclusion to the inspector in assessing proposed harm to local heritage assets. The decision confirms that, as long as the Secretary of State has given due consideration to the inspector’s conclusions, he is not required to follow them.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial