Save Our Southbank v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2024] EWHC 3326 (Admin) (20 December 2024)

Save Our Southbank v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2024] EWHC 3326 (Admin) (20 December 2024)

The Secretary of State's reasons regarding heritage impacts were legally adequate, as he accepted and agreed with the inspector's conclusions where no harm was found, and explicitly stated findings where harm was found. The development plan policies did not require housing as a necessary component of redevelopment; greater weight was properly given to CAZ priorities. No legal error or misinterpretation occurred.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3326 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: SAVE OUR SOUTHBANK; First Defendant: SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOUSING, COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT; Second Defendant: LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH; Third Defendant: MEC LONDON PROPERTY 3 (GENERAL PARTNER) LIMITED; Fourth Defendant: COIN STREET COMMUNITY BUILDERS & COIN STREET SECONDARY HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Heritage Assets, Development Plan Interpretation, Housing Policy, Judicial Review, Statutory Duties
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Planning Permission Heritage Assets Development Plan Interpretation Housing Policy Judicial Review +1 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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAVE OUR SOUTHBANK

Claimant

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOUSING, COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

First Defendant

LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH

Second Defendant

MEC LONDON PROPERTY 3 (GENERAL PARTNER) LIMITED

Third Defendant

COIN STREET COMMUNITY BUILDERS & COIN STREET SECONDARY HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State provided adequate reasons regarding heritage impacts under Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether relevant development plan policies required housing as part of redevelopment
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State misinterpreted or failed to apply development plan policies

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's reasons regarding heritage impacts were legally adequate, as he accepted and agreed with the inspector's conclusions where no harm was found, and explicitly stated findings where harm was found. The development plan policies did not require housing as a necessary component of redevelopment; greater weight was properly given to CAZ priorities. No legal error or misinterpretation occurred.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No relief granted
  • Planning permission stands