Judgement on the Judicial Review against Isle of Wight council over how the decision was made to approve planning for 473 new homes on the site of former Westridge Farm has been handed down today (Friday).
Although Judge Jarman agreed with Grounds 2 and 4 of the residents’ claims (see in full below), he ruled overall in favour of the Isle of Wight council.
Possible case for appeal
Speaking to all those who donated to the Crowd Justice funding appeal, a spokesperson for the residents fighting the case said,
“Regrettably this particular Judge exercised his discretion in favour of the council.
“Be believe there are errors and gaps in the Judge’s reasoning and is open to appeal.
“Greenfields was granted permission on grounds 2 and 4 of its claim (but not on grounds 1, 3 and 5) therefore on balance the claim was dismissed.
“Naturally we are hugely disappointed and thank you from the bottom our hearts for making this challenge possible.”
IWC: The council respects the decision by the High Court
A spokesperson from Isle of Wight council told OnTheWight,
“The Judge has upheld the determination made by the Council’s Planning Committee.
“Whilst we recognise the range of differing views about this application, the council respects the decision by the High Court.”
The judgement
The judgement in full can be read below (embedded for your convenience).
Five grounds for the case
There are five arguments submitted to the court were as follows:
- Ground 1: The Council’s conduct in determining to grant the Permission was unlawful. In particular, the conduct of the meeting of the Defendant’s Committee on 27th July 2021 was procedurally improper and/or unfair. This vitiated the decision to grant planning permission.
- Ground 2: The grant of the Permission is vitiated by the appearance of bias on the part of Councillor Brodie and/or the exercise of his functions for an improper purpose.
- Ground 3: The Defendant acted unlawfully in failing to publish a draft planning obligation on its planning register; and in failing to publish a completed planning obligation, contrary to Article 40(3)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015.
- Ground 4: The Defendant acted unlawfully in failing to having regard to regulation 122 CIL regulations 2010 and nevertheless relying, in granting the Permission, on the making of a financial contribution towards highways improvements; and/or unlawfully deferred consideration of whether or not the financial contribution towards highways improvements complied with regulation 122 CIL Regulations until after the grant of the Permission.
- Ground 5: The Defendant took into account an immaterial consideration, and/or acted irrationally and/or was materially misled by officers in relying on a financial contribution towards inchoate highways improvement proposals as mitigating an identified adverse impact of the development.
Article edit
3.35pm 23rd Aug 2024 – IWC comment added
