Lazari Properties 2 Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2026 (Admin)
Lazari Properties 2 Ltd v The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
21 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 353 (Admin)
High Court
A company tried to get permission to use their building in a certain way. The planning inspector said no because their application wasn't detailed enough. The court agreed on most points, but said the company could challenge one specific part of the inspector's decision.
Key Facts
- •Lazari Properties 2 Ltd challenged an inspector's decision dismissing their appeal under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
- •The appeal concerned a certificate of lawful use and development application for the Grade II listed Brunswick Centre.
- •The application sought to certify the use of the Brunswick Shopping Centre under Class E, disregarding condition 3 of a previous planning permission.
- •The inspector dismissed the appeal based on the application's imprecise description of the land and existing use, and the unresolved issue of condition 3.
- •The claimant challenged the inspector's interpretation of condition 3 and the rejection of their application based on procedural grounds.
Legal Principles
Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires precise specification of land and description of use in applications for certificates of lawful use and development.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 191(1) and 191(5)(b)
The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) clarifies the requirements for applications under section 191, emphasizing the need for precise descriptions.
Planning Practice Guidance
Inspectors' decisions on planning matters should not be overturned unless there is a good legal reason; their decisions on costs are afforded similar deference.
R (Flint) v South Gloucestershire Council [2016] EWHC 2180 (Admin)
Permission to challenge an inspector's decision should be refused if the appeal outcome would have been the same regardless of the challenged aspect.
Simplex GE Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1989) 57 P & CR 306
Outcomes
Permission granted to challenge the inspector's interpretation of condition 3 (grounds 1 and 2).
The court found arguable merit in the claimant's interpretation of condition 3, and considered it beneficial to settle this issue before a new application.
Permission refused for all other grounds of challenge.
The court found the inspector's decisions on the description of the land and use, and the hot food takeaway issue, to be unarguably sound.
Similar Cases
Malcom Jeffrey Barrett v The Welsh Ministers
[2023] EWHC 2503 (Admin)
Seven Capital Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2383 (Admin)
Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2842 (Admin)
Pyrosome Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 563 (Admin)