Strongroom Limited v London Borough of Hackney
[2023] EWHC 488 (Admin)
Strongroom Limited, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hackney
22 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1221 (Admin)
High Court
A noisy bar challenged the council's approval of flats next door, arguing they weren't consulted. The council admitted the mistake but the judge agreed that the lack of consultation could have changed the outcome, so the approval was cancelled. The judge wanted the noise issues re-evaluated.
Key Facts
- •Strongroom Ltd (Claimant) challenged Hackney LBC's (Defendant) decision to grant prior approval for change of use to residential dwellings at 117-121 Curtain Road, affecting Strongroom's adjacent recording studios and bar.
- •The Defendant failed to consult the Claimant on the second application, unlike the first.
- •The Claimant argued breach of legitimate expectation, irrationality, mistake of fact, and failure to consider material factors.
- •The Defendant conceded unlawful failure to consult but argued against quashing the decision under section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 due to lack of prejudice.
- •The case involved analysis of noise impact assessments, the 'Agent of Change' principle, and the interpretation of planning conditions.
Legal Principles
Judicial Review Grounds
None explicitly stated but implied throughout
Legitimate Expectation
None explicitly stated but implied throughout
Section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 (no substantial difference test)
Senior Courts Act 1981, s.31(2A)
Agent of Change Principle
None explicitly stated but implied throughout
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and General Permitted Development Order 2015
Town and Country Planning Act 1990; Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015
Interpretation of Planning Conditions
Keenan v Woking BC [2017] EWCA Civ 438
Burden of Proof in Section 31(2A) applications
R (Bokrosova) v Lambeth Borough Council [2016] PTSR 355
Outcomes
Quashing order granted.
The Defendant unlawfully failed to consult the Claimant. The court found it was not 'highly likely' that the outcome would have been the same if the Claimant had been consulted, given the flawed consideration of noise impacts and the potential for additional evidence.
Similar Cases
Davies, R (on the application of) Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
[2024] EWHC 2711 (Admin)
Joe Cook & Anor, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
[2024] EWHC 42 (Admin)
Carol Gurajena & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham
[2024] EWHC 1745 (Admin)
Krystyna Knight, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Harrow
[2023] EWHC 678 (Admin)