Arndale Properties Ltd, R (on the application of) v Worcester City Council

Arndale Properties Ltd, R (on the application of) v Worcester City Council

The designation of the conservation area was made for the improper purpose of preventing demolition of a specific building (the pavilion), not to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of an area of special architectural or historic interest. The process lacked adequate evidence and assessment, failed to define the area's special interest, and omitted meaningful consultation. Both the original and re-designation decisions were fatally infected by improper purpose and must be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Arndale Properties Ltd; Defendant: Worcester City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
applications for judicial review granted; both designations quashed
Legal Topics
Improper Purpose, Conservation Area Designation, Local Authority Powers, Consultation Requirements
Administrative Law Planning Law Improper Purpose Conservation Area Designation Local Authority Powers Consultation Requirements

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

Parties

Arndale Properties Ltd

Claimant

Worcester City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the designation of the conservation area was for an improper purpose
  2. 2 Whether the designation complied with statutory requirements and guidance
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence for the designation

Ratio Decidendi

The designation of the conservation area was made for the improper purpose of preventing demolition of a specific building (the pavilion), not to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of an area of special architectural or historic interest. The process lacked adequate evidence and assessment, failed to define the area's special interest, and omitted meaningful consultation. Both the original and re-designation decisions were fatally infected by improper purpose and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

applications for judicial review granted; both designations quashed

Orders

  • Orders quashing both conservation area designations
  • Costs to be assessed on a standard basis, not indemnity