Stryjak v London Borough of Hounslow & Ors

In deciding whether very special circumstances justify inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land, a local planning authority must consider whether a reasonable alternative site would avoid or reduce the planning harm. The extent of the required investigation is a matter of planning judgment. There is no fixed sequential-test formula.

On judicial review, the court does not re-evaluate individual site assessments or planning merits. Relief is generally justified only where the officer’s report materially misleads the committee by omitting or misstating a material matter.

The National Planning Policy Framework is guidance and a material consideration, not a rigid code. Paragraph 74 must be applied sensibly in the circumstances of the particular case.

The claimant sought judicial review of the London Borough of Hounslow’s decision to grant planning permission for an all-through free school on approximately 8.8 hectares of Metropolitan Open Land at Syon Green, Isleworth. The proposed development included school buildings, access, parking, sports pitches and a multi-use games area.

The challenge alleged that the alternative-site assessment was inadequate, that transport and local admissions issues had not been properly considered, that the relationship with the proposed Bolder Academy had been overlooked, and that the decision breached paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The central issues were whether the committee had been materially misdirected or deprived of relevant information, and whether the loss of open space could properly be accepted under paragraph 74.

1. Claim dismissed. Permission was granted, but the claim failed on its merits. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, subject to the Aarhus limit of £5,000.
2. The council was entitled to accept that an all-through school required one site, or at least physically connected sites, and that a minimum area of 2.2 hectares was required for the school buildings. The suitability, availability and deliverability of alternative sites were matters for the council’s planning judgment.
3. Applying the approach in The Governing Body of Langley Park School for Girls v London Borough of Bromley 2009 EWCA (Civ) 734, there was no one-size-fits-all rule requiring every possible alternative to be investigated to a fixed level of detail. The necessary degree of investigation depended on the extent of the planning harm and the circumstances of the application.
4. The officer’s report adequately addressed the need for school places, the absence of a reasonable alternative site, local demand, transport, the proposed land arrangements involving Bolder Academy, and the retention of substantial open space. The court would not turn a judicial review into a detailed re-assessment of each rejected site. No material error of law or Wednesbury unreasonableness was established.
5. The National Planning Policy Framework was guidance and a material consideration. Paragraph 13 meant that failure to comply literally with a particular paragraph was not automatically fatal. Paragraph 74 was properly treated flexibly. The replacement sports provision was in a suitable location and was at least equivalent, and likely better, in sporting terms; the site’s lack of recent recreational use was also a relevant consideration.
6. The court directed that any appellant’s notice should be filed and served by 4.00 pm on 18 July 2016. The judge indicated that leave to appeal would not have been granted if formally sought.

This was a first-instance judicial review of the London Borough of Hounslow’s planning decision dated 25 January 2016. The judgment states no prior appellate decision.