Hampden Fields judicial review, Aylesbury

We represented the Hampden Fields Action Group in a challenge to a grant of outline planning permission for a “mixed-use sustainable urban extension,” by Buckinghamshire Council, near Aylesbury. The claim, which was ultimately unsuccessful, challenged the Council’s consideration of the impact on local healthcare provision and the contributions required to mitigate the impacts of the development.

On 24 June 2021, Buckinghamshire Council granted outline planning permission for a large mixed-use development on a site known locally as Hampden Fields. The permission provided for the construction of up to 3,000 homes, as well as a range of other development, including 6.9 hectares of employment land, two primary schools to serve the new residents, a mixed use local centre, a doctor’s surgery, retail space, and other associated development.

We brought a claim for judicial review on behalf of the Hampden Fields Action Group (HFAG). Six grounds were pursued.

Grounds 1-3 related to primary healthcare provision and whether the Council had failed to properly consider the objections of the local NHS Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to the effect that the doctor’s surgery provided was too small to be operable or viable; and/or whether the specifics of other advice given to committee members in this regard was wrong.

Grounds 4-6 asserted legal errors in relation to the Council’s treatment of the effects on hospital and community healthcare services, provided by the NHS Buckinghamshire Healthcare Trust (BHT). In particular, the one reason the council officers had given for not accepting the BHT funding request (that they included “revenue” costs) was admitted by the Council to be unlawful. The Council’s reasons for rejecting this request had therefore fallen away and no other reasons were given.

The claim was supported by the CCG and BHT, each of which filed evidence in support of the claim. A “rolled-up hearing” was ordered to consider permission and the substance of the claim together.

Permission was granted on grounds 1-5 of the claim, but the claim was dismissed on all grounds. The judge found that the Council took into account the CCG’s representations and that members were sufficiently advised as to the CCG position. The submission that the proposed health centre was too small related to the strategic vision of the CCG, but it was not asserted the centre was too small to meet the needs of the development; the reasons given were legally adequate. While officers had incorrectly advised that the legal agreement allowed for further discussions to take place about the size of the health centre, that advice was not “significantly or seriously misleading in a material way.” The Judge considered that the Council had had sufficient regard to the BHT’s request for a revenue contribution and had provided adequate reasons for rejecting the request.