The Claimants in Carol Skrzypczak and others (Dolton Residents Action Group) – v- Torridge District Council [2009] EWHC 3197 (Admin) pursued two grounds of challenge to the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for mixed affordable/market housing on an ‘exception’ site contrary to the Development Plan. The second ground was founded on the Council’s refusal to disclose the applicant’s financial appraisal - relied upon to support the contention that the market housing proposed was required to cross-subsidise the provision of affordable housing.
 
HH Judge Mackie QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) explained in respect of the second ground that:
 
"The Committee was ... left in no doubt about the views of the objectors and was provided with an assessment of the appraisal by the Corporate Property Manager. The statutory regime provides for the involvement of the public in consideration of the planning application and a failure to comply with it is a serious matter. There is however no suggestion in this case that the regime has been contravened. Reliance is placed instead on a broad common law duty. In Edwards Lord Hoffmann explained why the courts should not impose a broader duty than that imposed by the legislator. I respectfully follow that guidance without hesitation in a case where, on the facts, the Council has drawn a reasonable balance between the competing interests. This ground, which was not specifically addressed by the granting judge, fails".

Simon Pickles appeared on behalf of Torridge District Council.