Property Update — February 2014: planning update... R v Horsham District Council
By Jan Hebblethwaite
In R (on the application of Thakenham Village Action Ltd) v Horsham District Council  EWHC 67 (Admin), Lindblom J considered the validity of a section 106 planning agreement that required a payment to be made by the applicant. The issue was that the payment would, however, be applied to a site not included in the application for planning permission.
The claimant action group applied for judicial review of the council’s grant of planning permission for the re-development of part of a mushroom farm into an estate of 146 residential units. The farm had operated for many years from two large sites within a village. The business was failing and it was proposed to consolidate the operations onto one of the sites. The other site would then be turned into a residential estate.
The action group’s claim was that the council had failed to assess properly whether the residential development proposal required an environmental impact assessment (EIA). If it went ahead, the residential development would be contrary to the development plan, and the screening opinion of the council — which stated that an EIA was not required — failed to address the nature, size and location of the residential development…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Wragge & Co briefing.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
Having remained fairly static for about 20 years, data protection laws in Europe are on the cusp of their next major overhaul.
The government has published its response to its Freedom and Choice consultation issued as a result of the Budget.