Bedford Park Developments v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2337 (Admin)
Seven Capital Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor
24 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2383 (Admin)
High Court
A developer's appeal against refusal of temporary planning permission failed. The judge found the reasons for refusal were clear and fair, and that even if one point were incorrect, it didn't affect the overall decision.
Key Facts
- •Seven Capital (Highgate Hill) Ltd appealed a planning inspector's decision refusing planning permission for a temporary 'meanwhile use' (MU) of the Archway Campus.
- •The MU application sought a two-year permission for 195 artist studios/exhibition space.
- •The Local Planning Authority (LPA), Islington Council, and the inspector raised concerns about the length of the temporary permission, fire safety, and the potential reduction in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions.
- •The inspector dismissed the appeal, finding that the adverse impacts outweighed the benefits.
Legal Principles
Legally adequate reasons must be given for planning decisions, addressing all material considerations.
Implied from the discussion of the grounds of appeal and the judge's analysis.
The appropriateness of a planning condition must be considered in relation to the specific facts and circumstances of the case.
Judge's analysis of the 15-month condition proposed by the LPA.
In statutory review applications, the court may refuse to consider academic points if they are immaterial to the decision.
Heathrow Hub Ltd v Transport Secretary [2020] EWCA Civ 213
The test of a fair and reasonable relationship to the development is relevant when considering CIL contributions as a material consideration.
Judge's discussion of the CIL issue and Mount Cook [2003] EWCA Civ 1346.
Outcomes
The application for permission for statutory review was dismissed.
The judge found the inspector's reasons to be adequate and that the grounds of appeal lacked merit. The CIL issue was immaterial given the inspector's express finding that the planning balance was decisively against permission even ignoring this factor.
The first ground of appeal (inadequate reasons regarding the length of the temporary permission) was dismissed.
The developer did not propose a 15-month alternative, and the LPA's position that such a period would be unworkable was uncontested.
The second ground of appeal (inadequate reasons regarding fire safety) was dismissed.
The judge held that the inspector provided adequate reasons for rejecting the developer's fire safety arguments and for finding insufficient detail in the Fire Statement.
The third ground of appeal (concerning CIL contributions) was dismissed.
The judge found this issue immaterial because the inspector expressly stated the planning balance was decisively against permission, regardless of the CIL.
Similar Cases
Lazari Properties 2 Ltd v The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2023] EWHC 353 (Admin)
Robert Hunter v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1068 (Admin)
Pyrosome Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 563 (Admin)
Macintosh Village (Management) Limited, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Council
[2022] EWHC 3002 (Admin)