Thakeham Village Action Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Horsham District Council

Thakeham Village Action Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Horsham District Council

The Council's screening opinion that an EIA was not required for the Site A development was lawful, rational, and based on sufficient information; the Council complied with section 38(6) by giving priority to the development plan and only departing from it for material considerations; and the enabling development and associated section 106 agreement were lawfully considered as material planning considerations due to the real and direct connection between the two sites and developments.

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 / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; renewed application for permission refused
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment (eia), Development Plan Priority, Enabling Development, Section 106 Agreements, Material Considerations in Planning, Judicial Review Standards
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment (eia) Development Plan Priority Enabling Development Section 106 Agreements Material Considerations in Planning +1 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's screening opinion that an EIA was not required for the Site A development was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the Council complied with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in determining the planning application
  3. 3 Whether the Council lawfully relied on enabling development and the associated section 106 agreement as material considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's screening opinion that an EIA was not required for the Site A development was lawful, rational, and based on sufficient information; the Council complied with section 38(6) by giving priority to the development plan and only departing from it for material considerations; and the enabling development and associated section 106 agreement were lawfully considered as material planning considerations due to the real and direct connection between the two sites and developments.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; renewed application for permission refused

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review on ground 2 refused
  • Claim for judicial review dismissed