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.