SSLUHC concedes planning appeal decision unlawful
Rye v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Our client achieved success obtaining permission from the High Court to proceed with a statutory challenge. Since that decision the Government has conceded its Inspector’s decision was unlawful and consented to it being quashed. Our client’s case revolves around a challenge to a planning inspector’s decision granting permission for the conversion of The Queens’ Hotel in Selborne, a cherished local inn, into apartments.
In June 2023 following a renewal hearing on an application to bring a statutory challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the High Court granted permission for our client to proceed with her claim for statutory review because the inspector wrongly assumed a belt of mature trees were still present and relied on an incorrect Arboricultural Method Statement. The Court was persuaded that this factual error played a significant role in granting planning permission.
The High Court rejected the defendants’ argument, which was based on the assumption that the inspector must have noticed the tree removal and that the decision factored in a worst-case scenario where the trees were absent.
Having granted our client permission, the Government acknowledged that its Inspector’s decision was flawed for those reasons given by the Court and further accepted the error had been relied upon by the planning inspector in deciding the development was acceptable in terms of landscape, character, and its impact on the setting of the conservation area.
The Government has consented to a quashing order and payment of our client’s costs if the case succeeds. The interested party (i.e., the developer) did not agree to consent to a quashing order and are defending the claim.
The case will proceed to a substantive hearing lasting 1 day on 15 November 2023.
- Permission Order
- Consent Order
Share via
- Back to cases
Associate (Barrister)- Partner
- Paralegal
Commentary
This case involved a fight to get our client costs protection to challenge the Government’s decision. To bring a claim a person must be considered a “person aggrieved” and this includes (not only) a developer or someone with an interest in the land but also someone who actively participates in the planning process e.g., as an objector.
Our client had formed a limited company, in order to be in a position to trigger a moratorium in the event that the pub was designated an asset of community value giving the community time to prepare a bid and compete with other would-be buyers. This was quite distinct from the planning process. Some of the objections were signed off by our client in her role as chair of the limited company where they reflected the views of a group of over 100 residents on matters concerning the community value of the pub.
However, when our client challenged the decision in her own name, the developer alleged that it was the company, not her, behind the claim. The developer contended our client should therefore be subject to a higher costs cap. We successfully resisted this argument challenging our client’s eligibility for cost protection or that the costs cap should be raised to the level for a company. Our client thus secured an “costs capping order” which ensures her ability to access justice, guaranteed under the Aarhus Convention which ensures access to review and redress through the courts in “environmental matters”.