Dylon 2 Ltd v London Borough of Bromley

Dylon 2 Ltd v London Borough of Bromley

The Inspector's interpretation of Policy 3.3D and 3.3Da of the London Plan was reasonable and lawful; no statutory or policy requirement exists for a specific review mechanism to be built into the BLP; the Inspector's reasoning was adequate and addressed the principal issues; no legal error or inconsistency...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Dylon 2 Ltd; Defendant: London Borough of Bromley; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Local Plan Adoption, Statutory Interpretation, Housing Supply Targets, Green Belt Policy, Inspector's Reasoning, Review Mechanisms
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Plan Adoption Statutory Interpretation Housing Supply Targets Green Belt Policy Inspector's Reasoning Review Mechanisms

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dylon 2 Ltd

Claimant

London Borough of Bromley

Defendant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bromley Local Plan (BLP) should be quashed for legal errors in Inspector's judgment of soundness
  2. 2 Interpretation of Policy 3.3D and 3.3Da of the London Plan
  3. 3 Adequacy of Inspector's reasons regarding appeal decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector's interpretation of Policy 3.3D and 3.3Da of the London Plan was reasonable and lawful; no statutory or policy requirement exists for a specific review mechanism to be built into the BLP; the Inspector's reasoning was adequate and addressed the principal issues; no legal error or inconsistency justifying quashing the BLP was established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed