Rory Walsh, R (on the application of) v Horsham District Council
[2024] EWHC 2640 (Admin)
Susan Hall, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Greenwich
27 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1588 (Admin)
High Court
Someone challenged a planning permission for a new building because of worries about trees and sinkholes. The judge said the planning permission was fine because they'd added rules to protect those things before the building was made, and they also said the costs involved in the legal challenge were fair.
Key Facts
- •Judicial review of Royal Borough of Greenwich's planning permission (21/2864/F) for demolition and redevelopment of 113 Mycenae Road.
- •Permission granted subject to 21 planning conditions, with revisions to Conditions 3 and 6 following committee discussion.
- •Claimant argued the committee unreasonably concluded impacts on trees and amenity were acceptable without completed DTS and BIA with geological survey.
- •Claimant's grounds: Unreasonable conclusion based on insufficient evidence ('shot in the dark', 'flying blind') and disregard of relevant considerations regarding deliverability.
- •Court considered whether the required DTS and BIA addressed concerns about tree roots and sinkholes, impacting deliverability and benefit-harm assessment.
- •Dispute over costs: Claimant challenged Sir Ross Cranston's decision to vary the costs cap from £5,000 to £25,000 and subsequent costs orders.
Legal Principles
Unreasonableness in planning decisions.
Case law on judicial review of planning decisions.
Legally sufficient evidential basis for planning decisions.
Case law on judicial review of planning decisions.
Material considerations in planning decisions.
Case law on judicial review of planning decisions.
Aarhus Convention and CPR45.41 regarding costs in environmental cases.
CPR45.41, CPR45.43(2)(a), CPR45.44
Outcomes
Judicial review claim dismissed.
Court found no arguable ground for judicial review with realistic prospect of success. The conditions imposed ensured sufficient assessment of potential impacts before development commenced, and the committee's decision was not unreasonable or based on insufficient evidence.
Costs orders upheld.
The judge upheld Sir Ross Cranston’s decision on the varied costs cap (£25,000) and other costs orders, finding them justified and proportionate.
Similar Cases
Bedford Park Developments v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2337 (Admin)
Mair Bain v Secretary of State for Transport
[2024] EWHC 2216 (Admin)
Halton Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 705 (Admin)
Sarah Moakes v Canterbury City Council
[2024] EWHC 1272 (Admin)