R v Wealden DC , Federated Homes Ltd , ex parte Charles Church South East Ltd
R v Wealden DC , Federated Homes Ltd , ex parte Charles Church South East Ltd
- 1989
- Journal of Planning and Environment Law (1989) JPL 837-848(12) .
QBD 7 April 1989 The applicants (C) are property developers with an interest in developing land in Sussex. The second respondents (F) are developers of two adjoining areas. The Council (W) granted planning permission to F for housing development subject to the completion of a S52 agreement . C applied for a judicial review of the decision contending that W had failed to consider the provisions of the local plan as to the comprehensive development of the area and that by the terms of the proposed planning permission, W was seeking to impose requirements to provide an infrastructure and social facilities beyond what was required for their own land. Dismissing the application, QBD held 1) that the local plan policies had been considered; 2) that the conditions as imposed were for a planning purpose, reasonable in all aspects as was the S52 agreement and 3) the delay by C in bringing these proceedings had been excessive and sufficient to bar relief.
PLANNING APPEAL
PLANNING GAIN
QBD 7 April 1989 The applicants (C) are property developers with an interest in developing land in Sussex. The second respondents (F) are developers of two adjoining areas. The Council (W) granted planning permission to F for housing development subject to the completion of a S52 agreement . C applied for a judicial review of the decision contending that W had failed to consider the provisions of the local plan as to the comprehensive development of the area and that by the terms of the proposed planning permission, W was seeking to impose requirements to provide an infrastructure and social facilities beyond what was required for their own land. Dismissing the application, QBD held 1) that the local plan policies had been considered; 2) that the conditions as imposed were for a planning purpose, reasonable in all aspects as was the S52 agreement and 3) the delay by C in bringing these proceedings had been excessive and sufficient to bar relief.
PLANNING APPEAL
PLANNING GAIN