Norton St. Philip Parish Council v Mendip District Council

Norton St. Philip Parish Council v Mendip District Council

The Inspector and Mendip District Council misinterpreted LPP1 and the 2014 Inspector's Report by treating the requirement for 505 dwellings as confined to the north-east of the District, contrary to the spatial strategy and district-wide distribution required by LPP1. This misinterpretation vitiated the soundness of the plan and led to an unlawful failure to consider reasonable district-wide alternatives in the sustainability appraisal, breaching regulation 12(2)(b) of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.

Parties
Claimant: Norton St. Philip Parish Council; Defendant: Mendip District Council; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Interested Party: Lochailort Investments Limited; Interested Party: Redrow Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; challenged policies quashed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Development Plans, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Statutory Review, Local Plan Adoption, Duty to Give Reasons
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Interpretation of Development Plans Strategic Environmental Assessment Statutory Review Local Plan Adoption Duty to Give Reasons

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norton St. Philip Parish Council

Claimant

Mendip District Council

Defendant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

Interested Party

Lochailort Investments Limited

Interested Party

Redrow Homes Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether LPP1 required allocation of 505 dwellings in north-east of Mendip District
  2. 2 Whether Mendip District Council failed to consider reasonable alternatives in sustainability appraisal
  3. 3 Whether proportionate growth criterion was applied to rural settlements

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector and Mendip District Council misinterpreted LPP1 and the 2014 Inspector's Report by treating the requirement for 505 dwellings as confined to the north-east of the District, contrary to the spatial strategy and district-wide distribution required by LPP1. This misinterpretation vitiated the soundness of the plan and led to an unlawful failure to consider reasonable district-wide alternatives in the sustainability appraisal, breaching regulation 12(2)(b) of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; challenged policies quashed

Orders

  • Policies MN1, MN2, MN3, NSP1 and BK1 of LPP2 quashed
  • Matter remitted to Mendip District Council for reconsideration in accordance with judgment