Thakeham Village Action Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Horsham District Council [2014] EWHC 67 (Admin) (29 January 2014)

Thakeham Village Action Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Horsham District Council [2014] EWHC 67 (Admin) (29 January 2014)

The Council's screening opinion for the housing development was lawful, as it properly considered the relevant criteria and provided adequate reasoning. The Council complied with section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, and its reliance on the housing proposal as enabling development for the mushroom site was not unlawful. The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 67 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Thakeham Village Action Limited; Defendant: Horsham District Council; Interested Party: Abingworth Developments Limited; Interested Party: Beamsync Limited; Interested Party: Rydon Homes Limited; Interested Party: Monaghan Mushrooms Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Development Plan Policy, Section 106 Agreements, Judicial Review, Screening Opinion, Enabling Development
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Development Plan Policy Section 106 Agreements Judicial Review +2 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 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thakeham Village Action Limited

Claimant

Horsham District Council

Defendant

Abingworth Developments Limited

Interested Party

Beamsync Limited

Interested Party

Rydon Homes Limited

Interested Party

Monaghan Mushrooms Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's EIA screening opinion for the housing development was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the Council complied with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
  3. 3 Whether the Council acted unlawfully in relying on the housing proposal as enabling development for the mushroom site redevelopment

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's screening opinion for the housing development was lawful, as it properly considered the relevant criteria and provided adequate reasoning. The Council complied with section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, and its reliance on the housing proposal as enabling development for the mushroom site was not unlawful. The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed