William Davis Ltd & Ors v Charnwood Borough Council [2017] EWHC 3006 (Admin) (23 November 2017)

William Davis Ltd & Ors v Charnwood Borough Council [2017] EWHC 3006 (Admin) (23 November 2017)

HSPD 9 contained prescriptive policies regarding the mix of housing types and sizes that fell within Regulation 5(1)(a)(i) and (iv) of the 2012 Regulations, requiring adoption as a DPD subject to independent examination. Issuing it as an SPD was unlawful. The failure to assess economic viability at the policy stage further supported the claimants' case.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3006 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: William Davis Ltd; Claimant: Bloor Homes Ltd; Claimant: Jelson Homes Ltd; Claimant: Davidsons Homes Ltd; Claimant: Barwood Homes Ltd; Defendant: Charnwood Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Development Plan Documents, Supplementary Planning Documents, Housing Policy, Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Review, Planning Policy, Affordable Housing, Viability Assessment
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Development Plan Documents Supplementary Planning Documents Housing Policy Statutory Interpretation Judicial Review +3 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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Davis Ltd

Claimant

Bloor Homes Ltd

Claimant

Jelson Homes Ltd

Claimant

Davidsons Homes Ltd

Claimant

Barwood Homes Ltd

Claimant

Charnwood Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Charnwood Borough Council's Housing Supplementary Planning Document (HSPD 9) should have been issued as a Development Plan Document (DPD) rather than a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
  2. 2 Whether the Council erred in failing to assess economic viability before issuing HSPD 9

Ratio Decidendi

HSPD 9 contained prescriptive policies regarding the mix of housing types and sizes that fell within Regulation 5(1)(a)(i) and (iv) of the 2012 Regulations, requiring adoption as a DPD subject to independent examination. Issuing it as an SPD was unlawful. The failure to assess economic viability at the policy stage further supported the claimants' case.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Policy HSPD 9 of the Housing Supplementary Planning Document is quashed.