The claimant challenged a planning permission for a substantial development, and in particular the terms of the associated section 106 agreement. The claimant was concerened that the terms might allow a sufficient development to required additional resources from the claimant without making a sufficiently unconditional commitment for financial support.
Held: The request for judicial review was refused: ‘looked at objectively, there are features of the way the police contribution in this case was dealt with in the section 106 agreement that are not very satisfactory and, as I have said, some legitimate criticisms seem to me to be open to the formulation of the trigger mechanism. I rather suspect that, irrespective of the outcome of this case, the issue of the timing of the police contributions will have to be re-visited before the development proceeds too far to ensure that those who are considering purchasing properties on the development will have the reassurance that it will be properly and efficiently policed. However, that does not amount to, or evidence the need for, a conclusion at this stage that what was agreed between the Defendant and the developers was irrational or that there was anything unfair about the way the Defendant dealt with the issue.’
Foskett J
[2014] EWHC 1719 (Admin)
Bailii
Citing:
Cited – Newsmith Stainless Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions Admn 1-Feb-2001
Application was made to quash an inspector’s decision.
Held: An inspector’s decision was not to be challenged as to its facts. In any case where the expert tribunal is the fact finding body the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness or . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council Ltd CA 9-Oct-2002
The applicant sought a judicial review of a grant of planning permission. She said that in the considerable time gap between the decision in principle, and the decision notice, several elements had changed requiring the decision to be reconsidered. . .
Cited – Dry, Regina (on The Application of) v West Oxfordshire District Council and Taylor Wimpey CA 21-Oct-2010
The guidance contained in Kides must be applied with common sense and with regard to the facts of the particular case. . .
Cited – College van burgemeester en wethouders van Rotterdam v M.E.E. Rijkeboer ECJ 7-May-2009
Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data Directive 95/46/EC – Respect for private life – Erasure of data – Right of access to data and to information on the recipients of data – Time limit on the exercise of the right . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Police
Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.526073