Linden Homes Ltd v Bromley Borough Council

Linden Homes Ltd v Bromley Borough Council

The Inspector's conclusions on deliverability, density, viability, and alternatives for the Bromley North Station site were inadequately reasoned, failed to address material evidence (including viability and density calculations), and relied on speculation rather than a robust evidence base. The Inspector also raised new issues without giving the Claimant an opportunity to respond, amounting to procedural unfairness. As a result, the AAP, insofar as it relates to Bromley North Station, was not within the appropriate power and is unsound under the statutory framework.

Parties
Claimant: Linden Homes Limited; Defendant: Bromley Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; AAP quashed in part
Legal Topics
Development Plan Documents, Soundness of Local Development Documents, Viability of Planning Policies, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Development Plan Documents Soundness of Local Development Documents Viability of Planning 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linden Homes Limited

Claimant

Bromley Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) as it relates to Bromley North Station 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 conclusions on deliverability, density, viability, and balance of uses were lawful, rational, and adequately reasoned
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector's process was procedurally fair, particularly regarding issues not raised at the Examination in Public

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's conclusions on deliverability, density, viability, and alternatives for the Bromley North Station site were inadequately reasoned, failed to address material evidence (including viability and density calculations), and relied on speculation rather than a robust evidence base. The Inspector also raised new issues without giving the Claimant an opportunity to respond, amounting to procedural unfairness. As a result, the AAP, insofar as it relates to Bromley North Station, was not within the appropriate power and is unsound under the statutory framework.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; AAP quashed in part

Orders

  • The AAP is quashed in part as it relates to Bromley North Station, including specified tables and policies.
  • The matter is remitted to the Defendant for reconsideration and re-preparation of the AAP for the OSA site in accordance with statutory requirements.