Linden Homes Ltd v Bromley Borough Council [2011] EWHC 3430 (Admin) (19 December 2011)

Linden Homes Ltd v Bromley Borough Council [2011] EWHC 3430 (Admin) (19 December 2011)

The Court held that the Inspector's reasoning and the Council's adoption of the AAP were not unlawful or irrational. While the Inspector's reasons were brief and some issues (such as viability and the balance of uses) could have been addressed more fully, the Inspector was entitled to exercise planning judgment and rely on the flexibility of the AAP's delivery period. The Inspector's conclusions did not amount to procedural unfairness or a failure to consider material considerations. The challenge was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 3430 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Linden Homes Limited; Defendant: Bromley Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application Under Section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Plan Documents, Soundness of Area Action Plans, Viability of Housing Allocations, Judicial Review of Planning Policy, Statutory Interpretation of Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Development Plan Documents Soundness of Area Action Plans Viability of Housing Allocations Judicial Review of Planning Policy Statutory Interpretation of Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

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 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linden Homes Limited

Claimant

Bromley Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application Under Section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) is 'sound' within the meaning of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and relevant policy guidance
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's reasoning and the Council's adoption of the AAP were lawful, rational, and adequately reasoned, particularly regarding the viability and flexibility of the residential allocation for Bromley North Station (OSA)
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness in the Inspector's handling of evidence and arguments, especially regarding viability, density, and the balance of uses

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Inspector's reasoning and the Council's adoption of the AAP were not unlawful or irrational. While the Inspector's reasons were brief and some issues (such as viability and the balance of uses) could have been addressed more fully, the Inspector was entitled to exercise planning judgment and rely on the flexibility of the AAP's delivery period. The Inspector's conclusions did not amount to procedural unfairness or a failure to consider material considerations. The challenge was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 refused
  • No modification to the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan