Edward Ware Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

Edward Ware Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector's reliance on the 'Bath point' (diversion of development pressure from Bath) and 'frontloading' of housing supply in the Somer Valley as reasons for dismissing the appeals was procedurally unfair, as these points were not raised during the inquiry and EWHL was denied the opportunity to address them. The Inspector also failed to adequately consider material evidence regarding frontloading and its impact. Grounds (2) and (3) succeed; the decision letters must be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Edward Ware Homes Ltd; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Bath and North Somerset Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Legal Topics
Housing Land Supply, Development Plan Policies, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Housing Land Supply Development Plan Policies Procedural Fairness Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Ware Homes Ltd

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Bath and North Somerset Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in considering 5-year housing land supply in policy sub-areas rather than district-wide
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector relied on irrelevant considerations regarding harm to spatial strategy and frontloading of housing supply
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to consider relevant contributions of appeal schemes to district-wide housing supply

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's reliance on the 'Bath point' (diversion of development pressure from Bath) and 'frontloading' of housing supply in the Somer Valley as reasons for dismissing the appeals was procedurally unfair, as these points were not raised during the inquiry and EWHL was denied the opportunity to address them. The Inspector also failed to adequately consider material evidence regarding frontloading and its impact. Grounds (2) and (3) succeed; the decision letters must be quashed.