Stonegate Homes Ltd & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Horsham District Council [2016] EWHC 2512 (Admin) (13 October 2016)

Stonegate Homes Ltd & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Horsham District Council [2016] EWHC 2512 (Admin) (13 October 2016)

The assessment of reasonable alternatives within the SEA process for the Henfield Neighbourhood Plan was flawed and unsupported by an adequate evidence base, rendering the making of the plan incompatible with EU obligations. The defendant's decision was irrational and unlawful as it failed to properly assess and evidence the rejection of western development options, contrary to Directive 2001/42/EC.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2512 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Stonegate Homes Limited; Claimant: Littleworth Properties Limited; Defendant: Horsham District Council; Interested Party: Henfield Parish Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Neighbourhood Development Plans, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Judicial Review, EU Directive 2001/42/ec, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Planning Law Administrative Law European Union Law Neighbourhood Development Plans Strategic Environmental Assessment Judicial Review EU Directive 2001/42/ec Town and Country Planning Act 1990 +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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stonegate Homes Limited

Claimant

Littleworth Properties Limited

Claimant

Horsham District Council

Defendant

Henfield Parish Council

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant lawfully assessed reasonable alternatives to the spatial strategy in the Henfield Neighbourhood Plan (HNP) as required by EU law
  2. 2 Whether the defendant lawfully considered alternatives to the Built-Up Area Boundary (BUAB) and acted rationally in its selection
  3. 3 Whether adequate reasons were given as to why the HNP met EU obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The assessment of reasonable alternatives within the SEA process for the Henfield Neighbourhood Plan was flawed and unsupported by an adequate evidence base, rendering the making of the plan incompatible with EU obligations. The defendant's decision was irrational and unlawful as it failed to properly assess and evidence the rejection of western development options, contrary to Directive 2001/42/EC.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • The decision of the defendant to make the Henfield Neighbourhood Plan is quashed.