Worcestershire Acutehospitals NHS Trust, R (on the application of) v Malvern Hills District Council & Ors

Worcestershire Acutehospitals NHS Trust, R (on the application of) v Malvern Hills District Council & Ors

The Trust failed to demonstrate a funding gap justifying a s.106 contribution under reg.122(2) of the CIL Regulations. The authorities' prioritisation of other infrastructure and affordable housing was rational and lawful. The viability assessments were exempt from disclosure under s.100D due to commercial sensitivity. No procedural unfairness or material prejudice was established. All grounds of challenge were unarguable and permission for judicial review was refused.

Parties
Claimant: Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust; Defendant: Malvern Hills District Council; Defendant: Wychavon District Council; Defendant: Worcester City Council; Interested Party: Worcestershire County Council; Interested Party: Welbeck Strategic Land (Worcester) LLP; Interested Party: Misters Bros Limited; Interested Party: Daniel Walter Aldersey; Interested Party: Charlotte Louise Aldersey; Interested Party: Karen Jayne Aldersey; Interested Party: Rebecca Widdowson; Interested Party: Martin Armsden Thomas; Interested Party: Anthony Nimrod Champion; Interested Party: Colin Robert Anstey; Interested Party: Jane Rozanne Anstey; Interested Party: Grace Maria Jones; Interested Party: Prudence Lilian Margaret Smeeton; Interested Party: Charles Peter Randall; Interested Party: Sally Elizabeth King; Interested Party: James Alexander King; Interested Party: Matthew John Brereton; Interested Party: Margaret Ann Dovey; Interested Party: Sally Ann Morrall; Interested Party: Alison Lois Dovey; Interested Party: Kerry Ruff; Interested Party: David Frank Smith; Interested Party: Welbeck Strategic Land LLP; Interested Party: David Roger Darby; Interested Party: Michael John Darby; Interested Party: Lynda Maureen Darby; Interested Party: Kerry Misters
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission/rolled Up Hearing and Substantive Determination
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused on all grounds.
Legal Topics
Section 106 Agreements, Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, Judicial Review—tameside Duty, Disclosure of Viability Appraisals, Public Law—procedural Fairness
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Section 106 Agreements Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations Judicial Review—tameside Duty Disclosure of Viability Appraisals Public Law—procedural Fairness

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

Claimant

Malvern Hills District Council

Defendant

Wychavon District Council

Defendant

Worcester City Council

Defendant

Worcestershire County Council

Interested Party

Welbeck Strategic Land (Worcester) LLP

Interested Party

Misters Bros Limited

Interested Party

Daniel Walter Aldersey

Interested Party

Charlotte Louise Aldersey

Interested Party

Karen Jayne Aldersey

Interested Party

Rebecca Widdowson

Interested Party

Martin Armsden Thomas

Interested Party

Anthony Nimrod Champion

Interested Party

Colin Robert Anstey

Interested Party

Jane Rozanne Anstey

Interested Party

Grace Maria Jones

Interested Party

Prudence Lilian Margaret Smeeton

Interested Party

Charles Peter Randall

Interested Party

Sally Elizabeth King

Interested Party

James Alexander King

Interested Party

Matthew John Brereton

Interested Party

Margaret Ann Dovey

Interested Party

Sally Ann Morrall

Interested Party

Alison Lois Dovey

Interested Party

Kerry Ruff

Interested Party

David Frank Smith

Interested Party

Welbeck Strategic Land LLP

Interested Party

David Roger Darby

Interested Party

Michael John Darby

Interested Party

Lynda Maureen Darby

Interested Party

Kerry Misters

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission/rolled Up Hearing and Substantive Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local authorities acted lawfully in refusing to require a s.106 contribution for NHS Trust services as a condition of planning permission.
  2. 2 Whether the authorities failed to take into account or investigate a material consideration regarding viability and infrastructure provision.
  3. 3 Whether the authorities breached s.100D of the Local Government Act 1972 by not disclosing viability assessments.

Ratio Decidendi

The Trust failed to demonstrate a funding gap justifying a s.106 contribution under reg.122(2) of the CIL Regulations. The authorities' prioritisation of other infrastructure and affordable housing was rational and lawful. The viability assessments were exempt from disclosure under s.100D due to commercial sensitivity. No procedural unfairness or material prejudice was established. All grounds of challenge were unarguable and permission for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused on all grounds.

Orders

  • Renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review refused in relation to all remaining grounds of challenge (grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6).
  • Application for disclosure of viability reports refused.