The government has won a legal challenge against a High Court
ruling that quashed a national planning policy intended to exempt
small sites from affordable housing obligations.
The Court of Appeal in London has backed government plans
to exempt small development sites from the need to have affordable
housing included on them.
Reading Borough Council and its neighbour West Berkshire
District Council claimed that the new policy, introduced in a
ministerial statement in November 2014, would drastically reduce
the amount of affordable housing across the country by more than 20
And they claimed that it would have a particular impact in their
areas, as well as providing a windfall to landowners and
Reading had claimed that the policy would result in a loss of up
to 30 much-needed affordable homes per year in its area, out of a
target of 167. And the more rural West Berkshire council said it
would lose almost a quarter of its affordable housing under the
In July 2015 Mr Justice Holgate backed their
arguments and quashed the policy, which excluded developments of
ten homes or fewer, or 1,000 square metres or less, from the
requirement to provide or contribute to affordable housing
However, today's judgement of the Master of the Rolls Lord
Dyson, and Lords Justices Laws and Treacy, which ran to more than
13,000 words, overturned the High Court ruling.
Lord Dyson, backed by two other Lords Justices, upheld all four
appeal grounds brought by the government, and reversed Mr Justice
Holgate's decision to quash the policy.
However, the councils' battle may not be over yet. There is
still the possibility the matter could go to the Supreme Court for
a further, last ditch appeal, in which today's decision would
West Berkshire District Council & Anr v The Secretary of
State for Communities and Local Government. Case Number:
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The choice of procurement route is vitally important to the success of any construction project. A number of different procurement routes exist but what are the essential ingredients of each and what are their relative advantages and disadvantages? This article discusses the differences between two of those procurement routes: general contracting and design and build.
Bonds, guarantees, performance security or whatever they are called form an important part of every major international contract. Despite this, there are a regular number of cases, in many different jurisdictions, where the courts are asked to decide what the nature of the particular project security actually is.
For well over a hundred years it has been standard practice for contract administrators to be used on construction contracts. Architects have been engaged to supervise and manage building contracts and engineers engineering contracts. More recently, project managers and construction managers have undertaken similar roles under new forms of contract.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).