Save Our Southbank v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

Save Our Southbank v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

The Secretary of State's decision was lawful: adequate reasons were given for heritage impacts by adopting the inspector's reasoning; the development plan, properly interpreted, did not require housing as part of the redevelopment given the site's CAZ location and policy priorities; circular economy policies did not mandate retention of the existing building for residential use; and the conclusions on tall buildings policy were rational and sufficiently explained, distinguishing between site appropriateness and compliance with specific design criteria.

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 After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Development Plan Interpretation, Heritage Assets, Tall Buildings Policy, Circular Economy, Judicial Review Standards
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Government Law Planning Permission Development Plan Interpretation Heritage Assets Tall Buildings Policy Circular Economy +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 4 Authorities cited 16 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 After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State gave adequate reasons regarding heritage impacts under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State misinterpreted development plan policy by failing to require housing as part of the redevelopment;
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State failed to consider retention of the existing building for residential use under circular economy policies;

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's decision was lawful: adequate reasons were given for heritage impacts by adopting the inspector's reasoning; the development plan, properly interpreted, did not require housing as part of the redevelopment given the site's CAZ location and policy priorities; circular economy policies did not mandate retention of the existing building for residential use; and the conclusions on tall buildings policy were rational and sufficiently explained, distinguishing between site appropriateness and compliance with specific design criteria.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed in its entirety.