Marks and Spencer PLC v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2024] EWHC 452 (Admin) (01 March 2024)

Marks and Spencer PLC v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2024] EWHC 452 (Admin) (01 March 2024)

The Secretary of State misinterpreted paragraph 152 of the NPPF by introducing a 'strong presumption' in favour of repurposing and reusing buildings, which is not supported by the policy text. This misinterpretation led to the application of an incorrect policy test throughout the decision letter. Furthermore, the Secretary of State failed to provide adequate reasons for departing from the Inspector's clear findings on the lack of viable and deliverable alternatives to demolition, contrary to established legal standards for reason-giving when disagreeing with an inspector's recommendation.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 452 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Marks and Spencer PLC; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Westminster City Council; Third Defendant: SAVE Britain's Heritage
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed (Secretary of State's decision quashed)
Legal Topics
Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf), Heritage Asset Protection, Zero Carbon Policy in Planning, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions, Duty to Give Reasons When Departing From Inspector's Recommendation
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework (nppf) Heritage Asset Protection Zero Carbon Policy in Planning Judicial Review of Planning Decisions Duty to Give Reasons When Departing From Inspector's Recommendation

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marks and Spencer PLC

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Westminster City Council

Second Defendant

SAVE Britain's Heritage

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State misinterpreted paragraph 152 of the NPPF by introducing a 'strong presumption' in favour of repurposing and reusing buildings
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to give adequate reasons for departing from the Inspector's findings on alternatives to demolition
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State properly balanced public benefits against heritage harm and loss of opportunity

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State misinterpreted paragraph 152 of the NPPF by introducing a 'strong presumption' in favour of repurposing and reusing buildings, which is not supported by the policy text. This misinterpretation led to the application of an incorrect policy test throughout the decision letter. Furthermore, the Secretary of State failed to provide adequate reasons for departing from the Inspector's clear findings on the lack of viable and deliverable alternatives to demolition, contrary to established legal standards for reason-giving when disagreeing with an inspector's recommendation.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed (Secretary of State's decision quashed)

Orders

  • The Secretary of State's decision to refuse planning permission is quashed.
  • Matter remitted for redetermination in accordance with the judgment.