Case No. CO-9102-2010

. It was perverse of the Council to grant permission for 28 dwellings on the basis that NPC Ltd’s case was that about 50% of the funding gap needed to be filled by enabling development (as thereafter the remaining 50% would be provided by as yet unidentified sources) when the DVS report had apparently identified that 28 dwellings of ‘enabling development’ would fill 85% of the gap. In effect, the Council perversely granted permission for more (harmful) enabling development than was said by NPC Ltd to be needed. 21.Before considering each of these grounds of challenge, I should deal with a preliminary question as to the appropriate test to be adopted by the Court in determining whether to grant permission to judicially review the Council’s decision. The applicable test as set out in the commentary to CPR 54.4 at 54.4.2 of the White Book is that permission will be granted only where the Court is satisfied that the papers disclose that there is an arguable case that a ground for seeking judicial review exists which merits full investigation at a full oral hearing with all the parties and all the relevant evidence.22.Of course, in the present case, as a consequence of the Order of HHJ McKenna, the permission application was not dealt with on the papers but at a contested hearing at which all parties were represented. In those circumstances, Mr Village QC for NFC Ltd contends that a different and more stringent test applies as to whether permission should be granted, namely that permission should only be granted if the Court is satisfied that the Claimant’s case is not merely arguable, but strong, that is to say likely to succeed. In support of that proposition he relies upon the judgment of Glidewell LJ in