The London Borough of Bromley v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 595 (Admin) (15 February 2016)

The London Borough of Bromley v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2016] EWHC 595 (Admin) (15 February 2016)

The exceptions in paragraph 89 NPPF, including the sixth indent relating to redevelopment of previously developed land, are to be interpreted as permitting new buildings even where this involves a material change of use, provided the development falls within the use and other restrictions of the applicable exception. Timmins does not preclude such changes of use where they arise from new buildings within the closed categories of appropriate development. The Inspector did not err in law in treating the proposed development as appropriate in the Green Belt.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 595 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: The London Borough of Bromley; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Rookery Estates Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Green Belt Policy, Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Material Change of Use, Section 288 Challenge, Planning Permission for New Buildings, Previously Developed Land (brownfield), Costs in Planning Litigation
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Green Belt Policy Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Material Change of Use Section 288 Challenge Planning Permission for New Buildings +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The London Borough of Bromley

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Rookery Estates Company

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment on Application Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law in treating the proposed development as appropriate development in the Green Belt under paragraph 89 of the NPPF, despite involving a material change of use.
  2. 2 Whether the exceptions in paragraph 89 NPPF permit new buildings involving a material change of use, or are limited to operational development only.

Ratio Decidendi

The exceptions in paragraph 89 NPPF, including the sixth indent relating to redevelopment of previously developed land, are to be interpreted as permitting new buildings even where this involves a material change of use, provided the development falls within the use and other restrictions of the applicable exception. Timmins does not preclude such changes of use where they arise from new buildings within the closed categories of appropriate development. The Inspector did not err in law in treating the proposed development as appropriate in the Green Belt.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dismissed.
  • Permission to appeal refused by the High Court; Claimant must seek permission from the Court of Appeal.