Meyrick, R (On the Application Of) v Bournemouth Borough Council

Meyrick, R (On the Application Of) v Bournemouth Borough Council

The Council's assessment of viability, including historic land costs, was not irrational; no deliberate neglect was established; the Council's discretion not to serve a section 215 notice was lawful; and condition 3 was not defective.

Parties
Claimant: Meyrick; Defendant: Bournemouth Borough Council; Interested Party: Linwood Park Ltd; Interested Party: Radcliffe Court Freehold Ltd; Interested Party: Tyrell Investments Incorporated
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Viability Assessment, Deliberate Neglect, Planning Permission, Heritage Asset, Public Benefit, Section 215 Notice, Planning Conditions
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Conservation Viability Assessment Deliberate Neglect Planning Permission Heritage Asset Public Benefit +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meyrick

Claimant

Bournemouth Borough Council

Defendant

Linwood Park Ltd

Interested Party

Radcliffe Court Freehold Ltd

Interested Party

Tyrell Investments Incorporated

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council misunderstood viability under NPPF paragraph 133
  2. 2 Whether the Council failed to disregard the deteriorated state of Radcliffe Court due to deliberate neglect under NPPF paragraph 130
  3. 3 Whether the Council was irrationally inconsistent regarding section 215 notice

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's assessment of viability, including historic land costs, was not irrational; no deliberate neglect was established; the Council's discretion not to serve a section 215 notice was lawful; and condition 3 was not defective.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Costs capped at £5,000 under CPR 45.1 and Practice Direction 45PD6
  • Permission to appeal refused