{ "docId": "019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-eb7244bd6d81", "docSlug": "b21885cc5252", "documentTitle": "BP plc (BP)", "authorId": "23_Bluebell_Capital", "authorName": "Giuseppe Bivona & Marco Taricco", "documentKindSlug": "shareholder-letter", "documentKindLabel": "Shareholder letter", "sourceTypeSlug": "activist_investor", "sourceTypeLabel": "Activist investor", "presentationDate": "2024-05-01 00:00:00", "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.7074423, "pageNumber": 42, "pageCount": 49, "prevPage": 41, "nextPage": 43, "slideType": "appendix_disclosure", "function": "cite_precedent", "density": "overcrowded", "nDataPoints": 0, "notes": "This page appears to be an excerpt from a legal document or shareholder letter appendix detailing a planning dispute.", "elementsJson": [ "paragraph" ], "metadataConfidence": 0.9, "imagePath": null, "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-eb7244bd6d81/42", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-eb7244bd6d81", "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-eb7244bd6d81.json", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-eb7244bd6d81#slide-42", "components": [ { "bbox": { "h": 0.08, "w": 0.7, "x": 0.15, "y": 0.38 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "75. When dealing with the second category, it is necessary to ask the question whether as a matter of statutory construction, or possibly by reference to policy material, there was a legal obligation upon the Authority to take the consideration in question into account. Apart from that, Carnwath LJ explained that a failure to take into account a material consideration can only be criticised if that failure was irrational.", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "49e97373-aeb1-49d6-a7a1-c6087af7545c", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.12, "w": 0.7, "x": 0.15, "y": 0.08 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "judgments were for the planning officers and planning decision-makers. They are afforded considerable latitude. The standard is unreasonableness. There is no room for substitution of judgment; and no room for hindsight. It is a high bar. The following is derived from Barr at §§74-76 (the same point, about the reasonableness standard of review, is made as to sufficiency of enquiry in Barr at §§39-40):", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "7e91298f-dfe3-464c-b039-77fa05c3f326", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.06, "w": 0.7, "x": 0.15, "y": 0.46 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "76. Having reconsidered the advice given to members about the transportation effects of this proposal in the context of its particular nature I do not see any proper basis for impugning the decision on the grounds of irrationality, whether as to the level of information obtained or the assessment of that information.", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "861c6fa7-197e-4f3e-8b6f-065b6819ee24", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.15, "w": 0.7, "x": 0.15, "y": 0.56 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "82. I have not been persuaded by Mr Barrett and Mr Hardy’s counter-argument. In my judgment, Mr Harwood KC’s second line of challenge is correct: there was, applying the high bar of reasonableness, an obviously material consideration as to whether the grant of Planning Permission was “approving more panels over a larger area than were required” for a 50MW solar farm, and as to the implications of that for the blue areas of solar panel coverage and remaining green areas, where those blue and green areas were to be, and who would decide. These are the reasons why I have arrived at that conclusion:", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "92368902-5a8e-47f0-8e85-8a101e16184d", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.08, "w": 0.7, "x": 0.15, "y": 0.81 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "84. Secondly, there were two recognised methods for measuring the capacity of a solar farm, for the purposes of applying the Statutory Capacity Threshold (§§16-20 above). One was the conventionally acceptable Combined-Panels Method, with its Accompanying Proviso. The other was an approach which Central Government was proposing for future adoption, namely the Combined-Inverters", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "c17d7537-e4f1-4261-8a03-1322a94762e4", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.1, "w": 0.7, "x": 0.15, "y": 0.71 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "83. First, there was an important Statutory Capacity Threshold, found in the statutory scheme, governing whether the solar farm was authorisable by the Council has a local planning authority (§§9-11 above). Unless the effect of the Planning Permission were to approve a ‘severable’ development (see §66 above), the purported planning permission would be of no effect. If the development were a solar farm with a capacity over the Statutory Capacity Threshold of 50MW, it needed the rigours of Central Government development consent.", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "d492aedb-ea65-472b-8cff-3b9919466dbf", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.18, "w": 0.7, "x": 0.15, "y": 0.2 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "74. [O]ne should bear in mind the warning given by Carnwath LJ in the case of Derbyshire Dales District Council v Communities Secretary [2010] JPL 341 about the circumstances in which a failure to take into account a material consideration can found a basis for quashing a decision to grant planning permission. He pointed out by reference to long-established case law, such as for example Re Findlay [1985] AC 318 and CREEDNZ Inc v Governor General [1981] 1 NZLR 172, 182, that there is an important distinction between a consideration which is \"potentially relevant\" so that a decision maker does not err in law if he has regard to it, as opposed to cases where a consideration is \"necessarily relevant\" so that he errs in law by failing to have regard to it.", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "f9c37782-666f-4dc9-b70c-c54d3751dd5d", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": null, "kind": "quote", "text": "[O]ne should bear in mind the warning given by Carnwath LJ in the case of Derbyshire Dales District Council v Communities Secretary [2010] JPL 341 about the circumstances in which a failure to take into account a material consideration can found a basis for quashing a decision to grant planning permission. — Carnwath LJ", "attrs": null, "subkind": null, "toolName": "Authority citation", "toolSlug": "authority-citation", "confidence": null, "componentId": "019dd953-25b5-768c-bb3a-5bc3bd7d634b", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.02, "w": 0.1, "x": 0.15, "y": 0.53 }, "kind": "title", "text": "Discussion", "attrs": null, "subkind": "headline", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "ab2cf119-c333-4c22-9b2d-f116e9b03e19", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null } ], "metrics": [], "tools": [], "frameworks": [ { "name": "authority-citation", "slug": null, "matchId": "4b2c3ab5-ce28-4106-964c-9a04e9e2dbb9", "evidence": "Citing legal precedents like Derbyshire Dales District Council v Communities Secretary", "confidence": 0.9 } ], "arcBeats": [], "loops": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }