Permission granted in post-Hillside challenge to large outline planning permission

Permission has been granted on the papers by Lang J to bring a judicial review of the decision of the London Borough of Southwark to approve a “non-material amendment” under s.96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The amendment was made to a phased, outline planning permission concerning the Aylesbury Estate in London. The amendment in question was to insert the word “severable” into the description of development of the outline scheme.

The Claimant is a local resident and campaigner whose home is due to be demolished under the scheme. She argues that it was irrational to conclude that the change to the outline planning permission was non-material, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30 (“Hillside”).

The claim is likely to be of interest to developers and planning consultants dealing with the implications of Hillside for “drop in” planning permissions and the amendment of large outline schemes more generally. In particular, the Court is expected to give guidance on whether a phasing plan and/or the outline nature of a scheme means that it is necessarily “severable”, as discussed in Hillside.

Alex Shattock acts for the Claimant, instructed by Alexandra Goldenberg and Saskia O’Hara of the Public Interest Law Centre (PILC). The claim is part of a wider PILC project which you can read more about here.