I.M. Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield District Council

I.M. Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield District Council

The court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim due to the operation of section 113(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as the main modifications are part of the statutory plan-making process and must be challenged only after adoption. Even if jurisdiction existed, the defendant applied the correct legal test for Green Belt revision, the process was fair, and there was no unlawful predetermination.

Parties
Claimant: I. M. Properties Development Limited; Defendant: Lichfield District Council; First Interested Party: Taylor Wimpey (UK) Limited; Second Interested Party: Persimmon Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Local Plan Process, Green Belt Boundary Revisions, Predetermination in Council Decision Making, Fairness in Planning Procedures
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Judicial Review of Local Plan Process Green Belt Boundary Revisions Predetermination in Council Decision Making Fairness in Planning Procedures

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

I. M. Properties Development Limited

Claimant

Lichfield District Council

Defendant

Taylor Wimpey (UK) Limited

First Interested Party

Persimmon Homes Limited

Second Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim in light of section 113(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
  2. 2 Whether the defendant misunderstood the law on Green Belt revisions
  3. 3 Whether the process adopted by the defendant was unfair to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim due to the operation of section 113(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as the main modifications are part of the statutory plan-making process and must be challenged only after adoption. Even if jurisdiction existed, the defendant applied the correct legal test for Green Belt revision, the process was fair, and there was no unlawful predetermination.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction