The Claimants sought to bring the claim on 9 separate and wide-ranging grounds, based on the treatment of strategic viability reports, the alleged contravention of ss100D and 100E of the Local Government Act 1972, the alleged impact on the historic environment (specifically the property owned by the Claimants), the issue of the alternative  siting of sports provision, the treatment of comments made by the Quality Review Panel, the question as to whether the applications should have been referred back to the Defendant’s Planning Committee after finalisation of the respective s106 agreements and whether, in accepting separate Environmental Statements for the Villages, the Defendant had failed to assess the cumulative effect of the developments. In that regard the reasons given by the Defendant were found by the judge to be in accordance with the approach endorsed in R (Wingfield) v Canterbury City Council [2019] EWHC 1975 (Admin).

Douglas Edwards KC and Kate Olley acted for the local planning authority, instructed by Lee Gordon and Josh Fraser of Walker Morris.