Andrew McEvoy & Anor v Warwickshire County Council

Decision date: 26 October 2020

Neutral citation: [2020] UKUT 276 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

The McEvoys served a blight notice for land said to be shown on the alignment of a proposed A5 bypass in documents submitted in the Local Plan Examination. The Tribunal held the October 2017 Strategic Transport Assessment and related examination documents were local development/development plan documents identifying the land for relevant public functions under paragraph 1A of Schedule 13, so the Council's s.151(4)(a) objection failed and the land was blighted land; further procedure was directed on remaining grounds.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium

A document forming part of the local plan evidence base and included among the documents submitted for independent examination (the Examination Library) may be treated as a local development document and, for paragraph 1A purposes, as a development plan document; where such documents consistently identify land as necessary for delivery of the plan, that identification can suffice even if detailed design, funding or the delivering authority remain undecided.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The Tribunal observed that uncertainty about a scheme's detailed design, funding allocation or delivering authority does not necessarily prevent land being treated as identified in a development plan document for blight purposes, and that consistent alignments across multiple examination documents and Ordnance Survey–based figures can support a finding of identification even when those figures are small-scale.