Camden Lock (London) Ltd. v London Borough of Camden

A planning inspector preparing a development plan must properly engage with material findings from related planning inquiries and decisions. Where those findings establish that an existing market makes an important contribution to a town centre, the plan must address the market’s future use expressly where redevelopment remains uncertain. A general reference to other appropriate town centre uses may be inadequate, particularly where the market is not identified as a preferred use. An inspector should not assume that a proposed redevelopment will occur within the plan period without evidential support. Material omissions or failures to apply relevant conclusions may justify quashing the relevant plan entry under Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The claimant operated Camden Market on land included in the Camden Replacement Unitary Development Plan. Earlier planning decisions had recognised the market’s contribution to the vitality and viability of Camden town centre. A related proposal by London Underground Limited for station redevelopment had also been rejected in its proposed form, although a future station-led scheme remained possible.

The UDP inspector recommended deleting the claimant’s separate site allocation and did not expressly identify market use as a preferred use in the allocation for the wider site. The local authority accepted that recommendation. The claimant challenged the relevant entry under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, alleging that the inspector had failed properly to apply the earlier inquiry findings and had failed to address the uncertainty surrounding future station redevelopment.

1. Claim allowed. The relevant entry in the Camden Replacement Unitary Development Plan was quashed under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The inspector had materially failed to engage with the conclusions of the Transport and Works Act inquiry and the First Secretary of State’s decision. Those conclusions recognised that the loss of a significant proportion of the market would have a particularly detrimental effect on the vitality and viability of Camden town centre. The inspector referred to the proposed station redevelopment and the conservation-area issue, but omitted the material town-centre impact.
3. That omission mattered because the evidence supported the importance of the market and the possibility that it might be displaced only temporarily. The relevant policy therefore required careful consideration of the market’s future use. A reference to “other appropriate town centre uses” was insufficiently clear, especially where residential use was given prominence and market use was not expressly identified.
4. The inspector was entitled to conclude that station works could justify temporary loss of the market. That conclusion did not justify omitting market use as a preferred use for the claimant’s land if a non-station use were possible. The earlier decisions treated the possibility of returning to market use after any necessary temporary interruption as important.
5. The inspector had also assumed, without adequate evidential basis, that a London Underground redevelopment would be brought forward within the period covered by the plan. The policy should have recognised the alternative possibility that the station improvement might not materialise or might be achievable without using the claimant’s land, in which event development preserving market use should remain within the preferred uses.
6. The authority had not independently supplemented the inspector’s reasoning or relied on other material capable of curing these defects. The relevant plan entry was therefore legally flawed and was quashed.

The judgment was a first-instance decision on a statutory challenge under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The judgment describes earlier planning inquiries and decisions concerning the market and proposed station redevelopment, but no lower-court decision under appeal.