Skelmersdale Ltd Partnership, R (on the application of) v West Lancashire Borough Council & Anor

Skelmersdale Ltd Partnership, R (on the application of) v West Lancashire Borough Council & Anor

Condition 5 is lawful and enforceable as it requires a legally binding commitment from retailers to retain presence at the Concourse Centre; it is not void for uncertainty, not discriminatory, and does not disproportionately interfere with property rights under A1P1.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Skelmersdale Limited Partnership; Defendant: West Lancashire Borough Council; Interested Party: St Modwen Developments (Skelmersdale) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed; permission refused on grounds 4 and 5.
Legal Topics
Planning Conditions, Enforceability, Discrimination, Property Rights, Judicial Review, Interpretation of Planning Permissions
Planning Law Administrative Law Human Rights Planning Conditions Enforceability Discrimination Property Rights Judicial Review +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Skelmersdale Limited Partnership

Claimant

West Lancashire Borough Council

Defendant

St Modwen Developments (Skelmersdale) Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Condition 5 attached to planning permission is enforceable
  2. 2 Whether Condition 5 is lawful under planning law
  3. 3 Whether Condition 5 is discriminatory

Ratio Decidendi

Condition 5 is lawful and enforceable as it requires a legally binding commitment from retailers to retain presence at the Concourse Centre; it is not void for uncertainty, not discriminatory, and does not disproportionately interfere with property rights under A1P1.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed; permission refused on grounds 4 and 5.

Orders

  • Permission refused on grounds 4 and 5.
  • Application for judicial review dismissed.