Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)
BDW Trading Limited & Ors, R (on the application of) v Wrexham County Borough Council
29 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 3474 (Admin)
High Court
A town council refused to approve its development plan twice, even though the law said it had to. A court case showed the council was wrong, forced them to approve the plan, and made them pay the costs of the case. The court said the council must follow the law, even if they don't like it.
Key Facts
- •Wrexham County Borough Council twice refused to adopt its Local Development Plan (LDP), despite recommendations from officers and an inspector's report.
- •Various developers, affected by the LDP, brought judicial review proceedings.
- •The Council acknowledged the claim's merit and the unlawfulness of its decisions but still refused to adopt the LDP, citing local democracy.
- •The court considered the legality of the Council's refusal to adopt the modified LDP.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of legislation involves considering the language used, the context (the legislation as a whole, factual background, and purpose), and necessary implications.
R (on the application of VIP Communications Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 10, Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority [2023] EWHC 35 Ch, R (Morgan Grenfell & Company Ltd) v Special Commissioner Income Tax [2002] UKHL 21, R (on the application of Black) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] UKSC 81
A local planning authority's powers and duties stem from specific statutory provisions, not abstract democratic entitlements.
Case judgment
Sections 62, 64, 66, 66A, 67 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (2004 Act) and Regulation 25 of the Town and County Planning (Local Development Plan) (Wales) Regulations 2005.
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Town and County Planning (Local Development Plan) (Wales) Regulations 2005
Outcomes
The Council's decisions to refuse adoption of the LDP were quashed.
The court found the Council had a statutory duty to adopt the LDP as modified under section 67 of the 2004 Act. The Council's actions were ultra vires and/or irrational.
The matter was remitted to the Council to reconsider and adopt the LDP.
The only lawful decision would be to adopt the LDP as modified.
The Claimants were awarded costs.
The Council's unlawful actions led to unnecessary legal costs.
Similar Cases
Pembrokeshire County Council v Ryan Jack Cole & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2187 (Ch)
Christine Pratt & Anor, R (on the application of) v Exeter City Council
[2024] EWHC 185 (Admin)
Edward Blacker, R (on the application of) v Chelmsford City Council
[2023] EWCA Civ 25
Lidl Great Britain Limited, R (on the application of) v East Lindsey District Council
[2023] EWHC 3210 (Admin)