London Historic Parks And Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing & Anor [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin) (08 April 2022)

London Historic Parks And Gardens Trust v Minister of State for Housing & Anor [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin) (08 April 2022)

The Inspector applied the correct legal test for 'substantial harm' to heritage assets, characterising it as a 'serious degree of harm to the asset's significance', consistent with the NPPF and relevant case law. The Inspector's reasoning was not dependent on an erroneous gloss from Bedford. The statutory purpose of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 has been fulfilled and does not impose an ongoing prohibition on the use of Victoria Tower Gardens for the Memorial. The Inspector's approach to alternative sites was lawful and within the scope of planning judgment.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 829 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: The London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust; First Defendant: The Minister of State for Housing; Second Defendant: Westminster City Council; First Interested Party: The Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government; Second Interested Party: Learning from the Righteous
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review (s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Heritage Asset Protection, Statutory Construction, Public Law, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas
Administrative Law Planning Law Heritage Law Statutory Interpretation Judicial Review Planning Permission Heritage Asset Protection Statutory Construction +3 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust

Claimant

The Minister of State for Housing

First Defendant

Westminster City Council

Second Defendant

The Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government

First Interested Party

Learning from the Righteous

Second Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review (s.288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Planning Inspector applied the correct legal test for 'substantial harm' to heritage assets under the NPPF and Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
  2. 2 Whether the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 imposes a statutory prohibition on the proposed use of Victoria Tower Gardens for the Holocaust Memorial.
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector erred in law in his treatment of alternative sites for the Memorial.

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector applied the correct legal test for 'substantial harm' to heritage assets, characterising it as a 'serious degree of harm to the asset's significance', consistent with the NPPF and relevant case law. The Inspector's reasoning was not dependent on an erroneous gloss from Bedford. The statutory purpose of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 has been fulfilled and does not impose an ongoing prohibition on the use of Victoria Tower Gardens for the Memorial. The Inspector's approach to alternative sites was lawful and within the scope of planning judgment.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission granted to proceed on Ground 3 (statutory prohibition) but claim dismissed on all grounds.
  • No quashing of planning permission for the UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre.