Mid Suffolk District Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 930 (Admin)
London Borough of Haringey v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
19 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2378 (Admin)
High Court
A developer got permission in principle to build houses on some scrubland. The council challenged this because the plan involved removing some green space. The judge ruled that the improved green space promised by the developer was allowed to be considered when approving the initial plan, even though it wasn’t guaranteed yet. The council can still stop the building if the developer doesn’t follow through on the promises.
Key Facts
- •The London Borough of Haringey (LPA) challenged a planning inspector's decision granting permission in principle (PiP) for 5-9 dwellings on 0.3 hectares of scrubland.
- •The development involved a potential net loss of designated open space and impact on a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC).
- •The LPA argued the PiP decision unlawfully relied on matters only securable at the technical details consent stage.
- •The inspector granted PiP based on anticipated improvements to open space and biodiversity, offsetting the harm.
Legal Principles
Permission in principle (PiP) is governed by ss.58A, 59A and 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017, and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
The scope of PiP is limited to location, land use, and amount of development; conditions cannot be attached at this stage.
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) §§12 and 20
A PiP decision must have regard to the development plan so far as material to the application.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s.70(2)(a)
Planning permission should be granted unless adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits (NPPF §11(d)).
National Planning Policy Framework §11(d)
Outcomes
The application for permission for statutory review was dismissed.
The court found no arguable inadequacy of reasons or unreasonableness in the inspector's decision. The inspector lawfully considered matters that would be secured at the second stage when assessing planning suitability at the PiP stage. The court held that suitability for PiP can be articulated as being 'provided that' or 'because of' matters to be secured at the second stage.
Similar Cases
Vistry Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2088 (Admin)
Dorchester Living Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2024] EWHC 3284 (Admin)
Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)
Bedford Park Developments v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2337 (Admin)