George Wimpey UK Ltd v Tewkesbury Borough Council

George Wimpey UK Ltd v Tewkesbury Borough Council

The Defendant’s judgment as to the implementation of the housing allocation on the Shurdington site and M & G Sports Ground site was unreasonable or irrational in the Wednesbury sense. The Defendant failed to have regard to clear policy guidance in PPG3 and draft PPS3, and failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the Claimant’s objections. The interests of the Claimant were substantially prejudiced by the deficiency of reasoning. The Defendant’s reasons for not including Homelands Farm were proper and adequate, and the refusal to re-open the inquiry was lawful.

Parties
Claimant: George Wimpey UK Limited; Defendant: Tewkesbury Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 287 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Quashing order granted in part; judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Local Plans, Housing Allocation, Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Review, Duty to Give Reasons
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Plans Housing Allocation Statutory Interpretation Judicial Review Duty to Give Reasons

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Wimpey UK Limited

Claimant

Tewkesbury Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 287 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant failed to have regard to relevant national planning policy in allocating housing sites in the Local Plan
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant gave adequate reasons for rejecting the Inspector’s recommendations and objectors’ representations
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant acted irrationally or unreasonably in including certain sites for housing allocation

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant’s judgment as to the implementation of the housing allocation on the Shurdington site and M & G Sports Ground site was unreasonable or irrational in the Wednesbury sense. The Defendant failed to have regard to clear policy guidance in PPG3 and draft PPS3, and failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the Claimant’s objections. The interests of the Claimant were substantially prejudiced by the deficiency of reasoning. The Defendant’s reasons for not including Homelands Farm were proper and adequate, and the refusal to re-open the inquiry was lawful.

Court Disposition

Quashing order granted in part; judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Quashing order in relation to those parts of the Local Plan which include the M & G Sports Ground site and the Shurdington site as housing allocations
  • Claim for judicial review dismissed