William Davis Ltd & Ors v Charnwood Borough Council

William Davis Ltd & Ors v Charnwood Borough Council

Policy HSPD 9 prescribes housing mix percentages that regulate development and guide determination of planning applications, falling within Regulation 5(1)(a)(i) and (iv). It should have been adopted as a Development Plan Document, not as a Supplementary Planning Document. The SPD procedure was insufficient and economic viability was not properly assessed.

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
Outcome
Claim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Local Development Documents, Housing Policy, Statutory Interpretation, Development Plan Documents, Supplementary Planning Documents
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Development Documents Housing Policy Statutory Interpretation Development Plan Documents Supplementary Planning Documents

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 16 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether policy HSPD 9 should have been issued as a Development Plan Document (DPD) rather than a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
  2. 2 Whether the adoption procedure for HSPD 9 complied with statutory requirements
  3. 3 Whether economic viability was properly considered in policy formulation

Ratio Decidendi

Policy HSPD 9 prescribes housing mix percentages that regulate development and guide determination of planning applications, falling within Regulation 5(1)(a)(i) and (iv). It should have been adopted as a Development Plan Document, not as a Supplementary Planning Document. The SPD procedure was insufficient and economic viability was not properly assessed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Policy HSPD 9 is quashed
  • Other policies in the HSPD remain unaffected