Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors

Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors

The Inspector's and WDC's decisions regarding the Core Strategy, including the housing requirement and protective zones, were rational, lawful, and complied with the SEA Directive, Habitats Regulations, and Environmental Assessment Regulations. The challenge failed on all grounds.

Parties
Claimant: Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Wealden District Council; Third Defendant: South Downs National Park Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Strategic Environmental Assessment, Habitats Directive, Development Plan Documents, Appropriate Assessment, Judicial Review, National Planning Policy Framework

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Wealden District Council

Second Defendant

South Downs National Park Authority

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the adoption of the Core Strategy was irrational and illogical regarding housing requirements
  2. 2 Whether the investigatory steps taken by WDC complied with the SEA Directive and Environmental Assessment Regulations
  3. 3 Whether WDC failed to carry out an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's and WDC's decisions regarding the Core Strategy, including the housing requirement and protective zones, were rational, lawful, and complied with the SEA Directive, Habitats Regulations, and Environmental Assessment Regulations. The challenge failed on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed