Oxted Residential Ltd v Tandridge District Council

Oxted Residential Ltd v Tandridge District Council

The adoption of the local plan part 2 and the CIL charging schedule was lawful. The statutory scheme and national policy do not require every development plan document to reassess housing needs or fulfil all NPPF requirements. The inspector and council acted within the range of reasonable planning judgment, and the CIL charging schedule was based on appropriate evidence and struck the required balance. No error of law or irrationality was established.

Parties
Appellant: Oxted Residential Limited; Respondent: Tandridge District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Administrative Court, Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Plan Documents, Community Infrastructure Levy, National Planning Policy Framework, Housing Land Supply, Judicial Review
Planning Law Administrative Law Development Plan Documents Community Infrastructure Levy National Planning Policy Framework Housing Land Supply Judicial Review

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oxted Residential Limited

Appellant

Tandridge District Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Administrative Court, Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adoption of a development plan document and CIL charging schedule based on an out-of-date core strategy was lawful under national planning policy and statutory requirements
  2. 2 Whether the inspector and council failed to consider objectively assessed housing needs as required by the NPPF
  3. 3 Whether the CIL charging schedule was irrational or contrary to government guidance

Ratio Decidendi

The adoption of the local plan part 2 and the CIL charging schedule was lawful. The statutory scheme and national policy do not require every development plan document to reassess housing needs or fulfil all NPPF requirements. The inspector and council acted within the range of reasonable planning judgment, and the CIL charging schedule was based on appropriate evidence and struck the required balance. No error of law or irrationality was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against adoption of local plan part 2 dismissed
  • Appeal against adoption of CIL charging schedule dismissed