Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)
Norton St. Philip Parish Council v Mendip District Council
16 December 2022
[2022] EWHC 3432 (Admin)
High Court
A council's new housing plan was challenged in court. The judge agreed that the council misread the rules when deciding where to build new homes, and didn't properly think about other places to build. So, that part of the plan had to be redone.
Key Facts
- •Norton St. Philip Parish Council challenged Mendip District Council's adoption of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 Part II: Sites and Policies (LPP2).
- •The challenge centered on Core Policies 1 and 2 (CP1 and CP2) of LPP1, which set the spatial strategy and overall housing requirement.
- •A key issue was whether the Inspector and/or MDC misinterpreted LPP1 regarding the allocation of 505 additional dwellings, focusing on the north-east of the district.
- •Another issue was whether MDC complied with regulation 12(2)(b) of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 by considering alternative locations for the 505 dwellings.
- •LPP2 allocated land for 510 dwellings (455 near Midsomer Norton, 27 in Norton St. Philip, and 28 in Beckington).
Legal Principles
Legal framework for development plans and statutory review under s. 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA 2004).
PCPA 2004
Soundness of a development plan as defined in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
NPPF paragraph 35
Duty to give reasons for conclusions on soundness (Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Limited [1991] 1 WLR 153; South Bucks District Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953).
Case law
SEA requirements under regulation 12(2)(b) of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No. 1633).
SI 2004 No. 1633
Judicial review principles apply to challenges under s. 113 of the PCPA 2004.
Case law
Outcomes
Challenge succeeds on grounds 1 and 2.
The Inspector misinterpreted LPP1 and the 2014 Report, leading to MDC's unlawful decision to adopt LPP2 with the challenged policies. MDC failed to consider reasonable alternatives for the 505 dwellings outside the north-east.
Challenge fails on grounds 3 and 4.
Ground 3 regarding proportionate growth lacked merit as the Inspector considered the criterion; ground 4 concerning irrationality failed to meet the high threshold for such claims.
Similar Cases
Mid Suffolk District Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 930 (Admin)
Cora Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2617 (Admin)
Lochailort Investments Limited v Somerset Council
[2023] EWHC 1776 (Admin)
Widdington Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Uttlesford District Council
[2023] EWHC 1709 (Admin)