Threadneedle Property Investments Ltd & Anor v Southwark Borough Council & Anor [2012] EWHC 855 (Admin) (30 March 2012)

Threadneedle Property Investments Ltd & Anor v Southwark Borough Council & Anor [2012] EWHC 855 (Admin) (30 March 2012)

The Secretary of State did not err in law by declining to exercise his discretion under regulation 4(8) of the EIA Regulations, as the Council was the relevant authority to determine whether the development required an EIA and had lawfully concluded it did not. The Council's grant of planning permission was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 855 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Threadneedle Property Investments Ltd; Claimant: Zurich Assurance Ltd; Defendant: Southwark Borough Council; Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Interested Party: Bilford Ltd; Interested Party: Investream Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Affordable Housing Policy, Judicial Review Procedure, Development Plan Policy
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Affordable Housing Policy Judicial Review Procedure Development Plan Policy

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Threadneedle Property Investments Ltd

Claimant

Zurich Assurance Ltd

Claimant

Southwark Borough Council

Defendant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Defendant

Bilford Ltd

Interested Party

Investream Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State erred in refusing to consider making a direction under regulation 4(8) of the EIA Regulations for the proposed development to be EIA development
  2. 2 Whether the grant of planning permission by Southwark Borough Council was lawful in light of emerging Core Strategy policies, particularly on affordable housing

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State did not err in law by declining to exercise his discretion under regulation 4(8) of the EIA Regulations, as the Council was the relevant authority to determine whether the development required an EIA and had lawfully concluded it did not. The Council's grant of planning permission was not unlawful, as the Core Strategy was not yet adopted, there was no mechanism for calculating an affordable housing contribution, and the Council's approach was consistent with relevant policy and recent appeal decisions. There were sufficient material considerations to justify not strictly applying the emerging affordable housing policy at the time of the decision.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review refused/dismissed
  • No order for quashing the planning permission or requiring reconsideration