Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

[2024] EWHC 1391 (Admin)
A council tried to stop two flats being joined into one, arguing it would lose a home and break planning rules. A judge decided the council's argument was wrong because the overall housing situation was fine, and the council hadn't properly raised all the relevant points during the appeal. So the flat amalgamation was allowed.

Key Facts

  • The London Borough of Lambeth challenged the Secretary of State's decision to allow appeals for the amalgamation of two flats into one.
  • The Interested Party (IP) sought to amalgamate flats 26 and 27 to create a single four-bedroom dwelling.
  • Lambeth refused planning permission and a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC), citing the loss of a self-contained unit and lack of exceptional circumstances.
  • The Inspector allowed both appeals, finding the net loss of one housing unit insignificant given the borough's overall housing supply.
  • Lambeth challenged the Inspector's decision on six grounds, primarily concerning the interpretation of development plan policies and the assessment of the loss of a housing unit.

Legal Principles

Section 288 TCPA 1990 allows challenges to planning decisions on grounds of exceeding powers or non-compliance with requirements causing substantial prejudice.

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Judicial review principles apply to section 288 challenges; the claimant must show misdirection in law, irrationality, disregard for relevant considerations, or procedural impropriety.

Case law (general judicial review principles)

Planning judgments and weighing of issues are for the decision-maker, not the court.

Seddon Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981)

Development plan policies should be interpreted objectively, in accordance with the language used and context; departures require good reason.

Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13

Whether a change of use is 'material' under section 55(1) TCPA 1990 depends on whether it changes the character of the land use; the significance of any planning consequence of the loss of an existing use is relevant but not determinative.

R(Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWHC 1785 (Admin)

Inspectors are not obliged to consider previous planning decisions unless they are brought to their attention.

Cotswold DC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin)

Outcomes

Lambeth's application for planning statutory review was dismissed.

The Inspector's decision was found to be lawful. The court determined that the Inspector correctly interpreted development plan policies, and his assessment of the planning consequences of the amalgamation, considered in light of the borough's overall housing context, was a permissible exercise of planning judgment. The failure of Lambeth to bring relevant previous appeal decisions to the Inspector's attention also contributed to the dismissal.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.