In Oxted Residential Ltd v Tandridge District Council [2016] EWCA Civ 414 the Court of Appeal had to answer the question whether it was lawful for the local planning authority to adopt a development plan document (“DPD”) and a Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) charging schedule to support a core strategy prepared under national planning policy for housing land supply that had been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (“the NPPF”) upon its publication in March 2012.
The appellant, Oxted Residential Ltd., a developer, made an application under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to challenge the adoption by the respondent, Tandridge District Council, of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies in July 2014, and by a claim for judicial review it challenged the council’s adoption, at the same time, of the Tandridge District Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule. It had objected both to the local plan part 2 and to the CIL charging schedule as they emerged. Both challenges came before Dove J. at a hearing on 20 February 2015 and were dismissed by him in an order dated 4 March 2015. Oxted Residential appealed against that order with the permission of Sullivan LJ.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge. The Court held that the Council’s actions were was lawful because the function of the DPD in question was to set out development management policies and that did not require an objective assessment of need for housing. The adoption of the DPD did not require an examination of whether the individual development management policies are relevant policies for the supply of housing under paragraph 49 of the NPPF: that was a task for consideration of individual applications for planning permission for housing. Further it was logical and sensible to have a CIL charging schedule in place to deal with the development planned in the core strategy as adopted and to revise the schedule in the light of the review of the core strategy.
Tandridge District Council said the result had “vindicated the council’s approach to plan making and in particular its ability to put in place policies which protect the character of the district’s towns and restrict inappropriate development in the green belt.” The appellant has been ordered to repay all the council’s costs incurred in defending this action.
Martha Grekos is a partner and head of planning at Irwin Mitchell
