Christchurch development challenge

At the heart of this case involving a substantial housing (and other) development in Christchurch, Dorset was an important point of law relating to the ability of a planning authority to impose planning conditions which would have altered the developer’s plans. 

Our client’s property backed onto a site for a substantial mixed-use development on an old police station site that would have included housing, community space, a new road, and other structures. The question was whether a green corridor comprising mature trees, hedges and shrubs should be retained between the houses on our client’s street and the development.  An earlier threat of judicial review had resulted in the decision to grant permission being reconsidered and brought back to committee. Some Committee members wanted a condition in effect requiring the green corridor to be imposed. This was said to involve a loss of planned houses.

At the meeting the Committee was advised by officers that it had no power to impose a condition requiring the ecological corridor to be ‘at least 12m in width’. We said that was an error of law.

The High Court considered that the change to the development would have been substantial and unreasonable to impose given what was applied for, and rejected the claim. At the time of writing, an application for permission to appeal is extant. We believe that established law as to imposition of conditions which might alter a proposed development accords with our approach.

A second issue in the case was about our client’s understanding that the committee would visit her property so as better to understand the circumstances, and that in the light of correspondence to that effect she has a “legitimate expectation” ie. one enforceable in law) that it would do so. The Court rejected this on the basis that the correspondence did not amount to a representation that was ‘clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification’. This finding shows what a high hurdle it is to establish legitimate expectation as ground for judicial review.