Threadneedle Property Investments Ltd & Anor v Southwark Borough Council & Anor

Threadneedle Property Investments Ltd & Anor v Southwark Borough Council & Anor

The Secretary of State was not under a duty to consider exercising his discretion under regulation 4(8) of the EIA Regulations in the absence of an express, unconditional request. The Council’s approach to Strategic Policy 8 and its summary reasons for granting permission were lawful, and any defect in the decision notice did not render the permission unlawful or cause substantial prejudice.

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
Outcome
Claim dismissed save for limited mandatory relief
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Affordable Housing Policy, Judicial Review, Local Government Powers
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Affordable Housing Policy Judicial Review Local Government Powers

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State erred in law by not considering whether to make a direction under regulation 4(8) of the EIA Regulations
  2. 2 Whether any such error vitiated the Council’s grant of planning permission
  3. 3 Whether the Council erred in law in its approach to Strategic Policy 8 of the draft Core Strategy and in its summary reasons for granting permission

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State was not under a duty to consider exercising his discretion under regulation 4(8) of the EIA Regulations in the absence of an express, unconditional request. The Council’s approach to Strategic Policy 8 and its summary reasons for granting permission were lawful, and any defect in the decision notice did not render the permission unlawful or cause substantial prejudice.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed save for limited mandatory relief

Orders

  • Mandatory order requiring the Council to amend the reasons in the decision notice as indicated by the court
  • All other relief refused