0
Judgment was handed down today in R (Dennis) v LB Southwark [2024] EWHC 57 (Admin). In this case, Holgate J considered the implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hillside for a large, phased outline planning permission.
The claimant, a local resident, challenged the Council’s approval under s.96A TCPA 1990 of a non-material amendment that inserted the word “severable” into the description of development for a large outline permission covering the Aylesbury Estate in Southwark. The question for the court was whether the permission was already severable (in which case the amendment would be non-material), or whether it was not already severable (in which case the amendment would be material and ultra vires s.96A).
The outline permission provided for discrete phases, which the Defendant argued were individually authorised by the permission and to that extent the permission was already severable (in the sense that new planning permissions could be “dropped in” over the phases while preserving the remainder of the outline permission). The Judge disagreed, applying Hillside, finding that “there is no contra-indication, let alone a clear indication, that the OPP was severable” [117]-[119]. His judgment suggests that phasing arrangements or a phasing plan may be insufficient to demonstrate severability, even in the context of a large outline scheme.
This case has significant implications for existing and future schemes where “drop-in permissions” have or are proposed to be used. Landmark barristers appeared on both sides of this case and are well-placed to advise on these difficult legal issues at all stages.
Jenny Wigley KC and Alex Shattock appeared for the claimant, instructed by Alexandra Goldenberg and Saskia O’Hara at the Public Interest Law Centre.
Melissa Murphy KC and Heather Sargent appeared for the defendant, instructed by Sadia Hussain at the London Borough of Southwark.
The judgment may be accessed here.
