District council defends legal challenge over permission for 205-home scheme on former equestrian site

The High Court has rejected two challenges to a decision by Wealden District Council to allow a 205-home development on land previously used for equestrian activities.

In Village Concerns, R (On the Application Of) v Wealden District Council [2022] EWHC 2039 (Admin) Mr Justice Dove said in his judgment that local campaign group Village Concerns had raised two distinct grounds but neither could succeed.

Wealden gave planning consent to Swansea Enterprises Corporation for up to 205 homes on the site, of which 35% would be affordable.

Village Concerns, which was set up to protect the historic character of the parish of East Hoathly and Halland, objected to development at the site.

Dove J said Village Concerns’ first ground was that a proper interpretation of development plan policies required a mix of size and type of market homes but this was not in the officers' report “and was completely overlooked in the decision-making process”.

It argued the decision was therefore unlawful since Wealden failed to discharge its statutory duties under section 70(2) of the 1990 Act and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,

Wealden argued there was no development plan policy in relation to the open market housing mix which had to be applied to enable a lawful consideration of the claimant's objections.

The council also said section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 applied as the outcome would not have been substantially different even had it been wrong in failing to consider this issue.

Dove J said: “Having examined the correct interpretation of these elements of the development plan and the way in which they interrelate, it is clear to me that the [council and developer] are correct to submit that there was in fact no development plan policy to be applied in relation to open market housing mix.

“There was, therefore, no legal error in the approach that was taken in the officers' report.”

Village Concerns’ second ground was that the planning committee was misled as to whether the council could insist on the numbers of units being reduced to accommodate environmental constraints during consideration of reserved matters applications.

Dove J said: “I am quite unpersuaded that the members were in any way misled, or could have been under any illusion that they could in principle refuse an application for reserved matters for 205 dwellings made pursuant to the outline permission they were being asked to grant, or that they were being asked to approve an outline planning application for up to 205 dwellings when the site was simply not capable of acceptably accommodating that quantum of development.”

Mark Smulian

Sponsored Editorial

Need a transcript or recording?

Are you a Paralegal or a Legal Officer? Have you been asked to obtain a transcript of a recording for use as evidential material? Wondering where to start? Don’t worry – we speak to people in your position every single day – and we’ll be happy to help you too. Whether or not you choose to use our…