Relta Ltd v Greater London Authority

A policy prospectus must be interpreted in light of its language and purpose, although policy statements should not be analysed as if they were legislation or contracts. Where a housing-zone policy requires a minimum number of homes to result from designation, it is insufficient that designation would confer general benefits or improve development prospects. The decision-maker must establish the required connection between the designation and the specified housing outputs. At least the minimum number of homes must require the designation, and associated funding or interventions, to unlock or accelerate their development. Homes that do not require the designation or funding cannot be counted towards that threshold.

Relta Ltd sought judicial review of the Mayor of London’s decision, made on behalf of the Greater London Authority, to designate Bromley Town Centre as a Housing Zone. The designation followed a bid by the London Borough of Bromley under a Housing Zone Prospectus intended to increase London’s housing supply.

The Prospectus required each zone to deliver at least 1,000 homes and required evidence that proposed interventions would unlock or accelerate the proposed housing outputs. Bromley’s bid referred to various sites and claimed substantially more than 1,000 homes, but its supporting material indicated that 620 units did not need GLA intervention. The central issue was whether those units could nevertheless be counted because the designation would provide general or indirect benefits.

1. The claim succeeded. The Mayor’s decision to designate Bromley Town Centre as a Housing Zone was quashed. The precise relief and ancillary orders were to be determined after further submissions.
2. The Housing Zone Prospectus was a policy statement. Its requirements were matters of law for the court to interpret, but the Prospectus should be read in light of its purpose of increasing housing production and should not be subjected to the same detailed analysis as legislation or contractual provisions.
3. The requirement in paragraph 66(b) for evidence that interventions would unlock or accelerate the proposed housing outputs informed the meaning of paragraph 66(c), which required each zone to deliver at least 1,000 homes. In context, at least 1,000 of the identified outputs had to require the Housing Zone designation, including the associated GLA interventions or funding, in order to be unlocked or accelerated.
4. It was insufficient to show that designation would provide general advantages, such as improved market confidence, expedited planning processes or infrastructure benefits. Homes which did not need GLA intervention, including units already consented or underway without any demonstrated link to the designation, could not count towards the 1,000-home threshold.
5. The material placed before the Mayor did not establish the necessary link for 1,000 homes. The documentation was also misleading because it relied on an erroneous figure of 1,510 homes, later accepted to be 1,150, while including units that did not require the designation. Evidence from a GLA officer could not supplement or rewrite the reasons given to the Mayor.

Permission to apply for judicial review was initially refused on the papers but granted on oral renewal. The claim was then determined at first instance by the High Court (Administrative Court).