IM Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield District Council & Ors

IM Properties Development Ltd v Lichfield District Council & Ors

The planning inspector properly considered legal compliance, allowed relevant evidence, the sustainability appraisal met statutory requirements, exceptional circumstances justified green belt release, and the main modifications were within statutory powers; no grounds for quashing the plan were established.

Parties
Claimant: IM Properties Development Limited; Defendant: Lichfield District Council; 1st Interested Party: Taylor Wimpey UK Limited; 2nd Interested Party: Persimmon Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Local Plan Adoption, Sustainability Appraisal, Green Belt Policy, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Consultation Procedures, Statutory Interpretation

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IM Properties Development Limited

Claimant

Lichfield District Council

Defendant

Taylor Wimpey UK Limited

1st Interested Party

Persimmon Homes Limited

2nd Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector failed to determine legal compliance of the sustainability appraisal under section 20(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
  2. 2 Whether the sustainability appraisal and process of consideration of alternatives were legally flawed and unfair
  3. 3 Whether the planning inspector adopted the correct approach to altering green belt boundaries

Ratio Decidendi

The planning inspector properly considered legal compliance, allowed relevant evidence, the sustainability appraisal met statutory requirements, exceptional circumstances justified green belt release, and the main modifications were within statutory powers; no grounds for quashing the plan were established.

Court Disposition

Application refused