Grand Union Investments Ltd v Dacorum Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1894 (Admin) (12 June 2014)

Grand Union Investments Ltd v Dacorum Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1894 (Admin) (12 June 2014)

The Council's adoption of the core strategy, incorporating Main Modification 28 and committing to an early partial review, was not irrational or unlawful. The inspector's judgment that the plan was sound, subject to the review, was a reasonable and proportionate response to the identified shortcomings, and the Council complied with statutory and policy requirements. The court's role is limited to reviewing for irrationality or legal error, neither of which was established.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1894 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Grand Union Investments Limited; Defendant: Dacorum Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Local Development Plans, Soundness of Core Strategy, Judicial Review, National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Strategic Environmental Assessment (sea)
Administrative Law Planning Law Public Law Local Development Plans Soundness of Core Strategy Judicial Review National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Strategic Environmental Assessment (sea)

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grand Union Investments Limited

Claimant

Dacorum Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's adoption of its core strategy without first assessing full housing needs, but committing to an early review, was irrational or unlawful under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the NPPF.
  2. 2 Whether the Council failed to comply with the requirements of the SEA Directive and Regulations by not assessing reasonable alternatives to the early partial review.

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's adoption of the core strategy, incorporating Main Modification 28 and committing to an early partial review, was not irrational or unlawful. The inspector's judgment that the plan was sound, subject to the review, was a reasonable and proportionate response to the identified shortcomings, and the Council complied with statutory and policy requirements. The court's role is limited to reviewing for irrationality or legal error, neither of which was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is refused.
  • The Council's adoption of the core strategy stands.