R (oao Hourhope Ltd) v Shropshire Council

R (oao Hourhope Ltd) v Shropshire Council

The court held that 'in lawful use' under the CIL Regulations requires actual use, not merely an available lawful use, and that the Council was entitled to conclude the Red Lion was not in actual use during the relevant period. The continued presence of chattels did not amount to storage as a lawful use, and the Council's guidance did not create a legitimate expectation that would entitle the claimant to a deduction.

Parties
Claimant: Hourhope Ltd; Defendant: Shropshire Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Community Infrastructure Levy, Demolition Deduction, Lawful Use, Legitimate Expectation, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Community Infrastructure Levy Demolition Deduction Lawful Use Legitimate Expectation Statutory Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hourhope Ltd

Claimant

Shropshire Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Red Lion building was 'in lawful use' for the purposes of a demolition deduction under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 as amended
  2. 2 Whether the Council erred in law in refusing to amend the CIL liability notice
  3. 3 Whether the Council's guidance created a legitimate expectation regarding the interpretation of 'in use'

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that 'in lawful use' under the CIL Regulations requires actual use, not merely an available lawful use, and that the Council was entitled to conclude the Red Lion was not in actual use during the relevant period. The continued presence of chattels did not amount to storage as a lawful use, and the Council's guidance did not create a legitimate expectation that would entitle the claimant to a deduction.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed