Norton St. Philip Parish Council v Mendip District Council [2022] EWHC 3432 (Admin) (16 December 2022)

Norton St. Philip Parish Council v Mendip District Council [2022] EWHC 3432 (Admin) (16 December 2022)

The Inspector and Mendip District Council misinterpreted LPP1 and the Inspector's report by treating the requirement for 505 additional dwellings as confined to the north-east of the District, rather than as a district-wide requirement to be distributed in accordance with the spatial strategy. This misinterpretation led to a failure to consider reasonable alternatives in the sustainability appraisal, contrary to regulation 12(2)(b) of the 2004 Regulations. The allocations in Norton St Philip and Beckington were not justified by the plan's policies or evidence base.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3432 (Admin)
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 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; adoption of LPP2 quashed in respect of specified policies.
Legal Topics
Local Plan Adoption, Statutory Interpretation, Sustainability Appraisal, Judicial Review, Development Plan Examination
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Local Plan Adoption Statutory Interpretation Sustainability Appraisal Judicial Review Development Plan Examination

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 14 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 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector and/or Mendip District Council misinterpreted LPP1 as requiring all 505 additional dwellings to be located in the north-east of the District
  2. 2 Whether Mendip District Council failed to comply with regulation 12(2)(b) of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 by not considering reasonable alternatives in the sustainability appraisal
  3. 3 Whether the allocations in Norton St Philip and Beckington complied with the principle of proportionate growth in Policy CP2

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector and Mendip District Council misinterpreted LPP1 and the Inspector's report by treating the requirement for 505 additional dwellings as confined to the north-east of the District, rather than as a district-wide requirement to be distributed in accordance with the spatial strategy. This misinterpretation led to a failure to consider reasonable alternatives in the sustainability appraisal, contrary to regulation 12(2)(b) of the 2004 Regulations. The allocations in Norton St Philip and Beckington were not justified by the plan's policies or evidence base.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; adoption of LPP2 quashed in respect of specified policies.

Orders

  • Remittal of Policies MN1, MN2, MN3, NSP1 and BK1 and related text for reconsideration.
  • No other part of LPP2 affected.