Stephen Whiteside, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon

22 December 2023

[2023] EWHC 3289 (Admin)

High Court

A resident challenged a council's decision to allow a building project to change its ground levels. He argued that the change made it impossible to build accessible homes as originally planned. The court found the council made a legal mistake by not considering this, but ultimately ruled that the project would probably have been approved anyway, as making it accessible might not be possible given the land's slope.

Key Facts

•Stephen Whiteside challenged the London Borough of Croydon's approval to discharge condition 18 of planning permission 21/0919/FUL.
•Condition 18 related to finished land levels, while condition 14 required accessible housing compliant with Building Regulations 2010.
•Whiteside argued the discharge of condition 18 made compliance with condition 14 impossible, rendering the approval irrational and breaching the PSED.
•The council argued that condition 18's purpose was separate from condition 14 and that compliance with building regulations was a matter for building control.
•The court considered whether the council should have considered the potential impact of discharging condition 18 on condition 14.

Legal Principles

Irrationality/Wednesbury unreasonableness in planning decisions.

R (Christine Wells) v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council [2022] EWHC 3298 (Admin)

Duty to carry out sufficient inquiry.

R (Plantaganet Alliance) v Secretary of State for Justice and others [2014] EWHC 1662

Interpreting planning conditions.

Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2015] UKSC 74

Approach to material considerations in planning decisions.

R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] PTSR 221

Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Equality Act 2010, section 149

Building Regulations 2010 and Approved Document M.

Building Regulations 2010, Building Act 1984

Test for discharge of a planning condition.

R (Cathie) v Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council [2022] EWHC 2148 (Admin)

Section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 (highly likely outcome would be the same).

Senior Courts Act 1981, section 31(2A)

Outcomes

Claim failed.

While the council erred in law by not considering whether the discharge of condition 18 prejudiced compliance with condition 14, it was highly likely that the outcome would have been the same even if the error had not occurred. The evidence suggested that step-free access, the core issue, was impossible within the parameters of the original planning permission.

Stephen Whiteside, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Christine Pratt & Anor, R (on the application of) v Exeter City Council

Alexander James Warren Wynne, R (on the application of) v Vale of White Horse District Council

Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor

Malcom Jeffrey Barrett v The Welsh Ministers

Barbara Laing, R (on the application of) v The Cornwall Council