Stonewater (2) Ltd v Wealden District Council [2021] EWHC 2750 (Admin) (15 October 2021)

Stonewater (2) Ltd v Wealden District Council [2021] EWHC 2750 (Admin) (15 October 2021)

The Council was entitled to refuse social housing relief because the existing section 106 agreement fixed affordable housing at 35% and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that 100% affordable housing would be lawfully delivered. The CIL Regulations do not require a section 106 agreement as a legal pre-requisite for relief, but the absence of a binding commitment was a material evidential factor. The Council's decision was rational and lawful.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2750 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Stonewater (2) Limited; Defendant: Wealden District Council; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Community Infrastructure Levy, Social Housing Relief, Section 106 Agreements, Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Review
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Community Infrastructure Levy Social Housing Relief Section 106 Agreements Statutory Interpretation 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stonewater (2) Limited

Claimant

Wealden District Council

Defendant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council erred in law by requiring a planning obligation as a pre-requisite to social housing relief under the CIL Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the Council erred in law by treating the terms of the section 106 agreement as relevant to the grant of social housing relief and/or by concluding the agreement limited affordable housing to 35%
  3. 3 Whether the Council took into account immaterial considerations or acted for an improper purpose in refusing relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Council was entitled to refuse social housing relief because the existing section 106 agreement fixed affordable housing at 35% and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that 100% affordable housing would be lawfully delivered. The CIL Regulations do not require a section 106 agreement as a legal pre-requisite for relief, but the absence of a binding commitment was a material evidential factor. The Council's decision was rational and lawful.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review is dismissed.
  • No order for relief; the Council's decision stands.