Fox Strategic Land and Property Ltd, R (on the application of) v Chorley Borough Council & Ors [2014] EWHC 1179 (Admin) (17 April 2014)

Fox Strategic Land and Property Ltd, R (on the application of) v Chorley Borough Council & Ors [2014] EWHC 1179 (Admin) (17 April 2014)

The examiner's approach to the evidence on land values, dwelling size, density, and development costs was not irrational or unlawful; he used appropriate available evidence and provided adequate reasoning. The charging schedule was not rendered unlawful by the failure to account for the future Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6 requirement, as the councils intended to review the schedule before that policy took effect. The process complied with statutory requirements and national guidance.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1179 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Fox Strategic Land and Property Limited; Defendant: Chorley Borough Council; First Interested Party: Preston City Council; Second Interested Party: South Ribble Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Community Infrastructure Levy, Judicial Review, Viability Assessment, Planning Policy, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Community Infrastructure Levy Judicial Review Viability Assessment Planning Policy 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fox Strategic Land and Property Limited

Claimant

Chorley Borough Council

Defendant

Preston City Council

First Interested Party

South Ribble Borough Council

Second Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the examiner's approach to evidence on land value and viability was irrational
  2. 2 Whether the examiner misunderstood or misapplied evidence on dwelling size, density, and costs
  3. 3 Whether it was unlawful to adopt the charging schedule without accounting for future policy requirements (Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6)

Ratio Decidendi

The examiner's approach to the evidence on land values, dwelling size, density, and development costs was not irrational or unlawful; he used appropriate available evidence and provided adequate reasoning. The charging schedule was not rendered unlawful by the failure to account for the future Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6 requirement, as the councils intended to review the schedule before that policy took effect. The process complied with statutory requirements and national guidance.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • No order to quash the charging schedule