Successful JR Challenge to Planning Permission in Appledore, Devon

On 15 April 2025, HHJ Russen KC in the High Court quashed the grant of planning permission granted by Torridge District Council for “Erection of 2 no. dwellings” in Appledore, Devon. This case was heard 27-28 February in Bristol with Andrew Parkinson instructed by Richard Buxton Solicitors to act for Ms Croft. This claim was heard and linked with another successful claim to challenge a Traffic Regulation Order near the same site by way of statutory review, brought by Richard Buxton Solicitors on behalf of the same claimant.

On 8th April 2024, Torridge DC granted planning permission for “Erection of 2 no. dwellings” at Land Adjacent to Greenacres, Pitt Lane, Appledore, Devon. These buildings were on a site known as the Triangle Land (see map below) which forms part of a larger 130 dwelling allocation under local plan policy NOR07: Site Adjoining Pitt Hill.

This claim was a challenge to the lawful interpretation of a housing allocation policy following Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13; [2012] PTSR 983 is a matter of law for the court to decide as to whether the planning officers or committee members properly understood the policy.

Our argument in this case was that Torridge District Council misinterpreted NOR07(2)(c) which required that vehicular access to the site should be achieved by an access to Pitt Hill, a historic Devon lane with important characteristic hedges.

However, the problem arose because the challenged development followed the grant by TDC of two earlier planning consents (to Baker Estates and Bunnyhomes) each of which also had a separate unique access from Pitt Hill. We argued that the policy wording of an access should mean one access from the whole of the housing allocation to Pitt Hill. HHJ Russen KC agreed that an access should be interpreted similar to an hour meaning one access.

In addition, we also argued that if a Local Planning Authority makes an error in an interpretation of policy when granting the Baker Estates and/or Bunnyhomes consents, it cannot then rely on that previous error, do it again and get away with an unlawful policy interpretation. This was also upheld in HHJ Russen KC’s judgment as below:

[40 ix] The decision of Mr James Strachan QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, in R. (Gill) v London Borough of Brent [2021] EWHC 67 (Admin)* at [48], shows that a local planning authority cannot rely upon (or, on grounds of consistency, be held to) a previously incorrect interpretation of policy when making a decision which reflects, or should reflect, its correct interpretation.

*Richard Buxton Solicitors also acted for the claimant in this matter.