London Borough of Haringey v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

Permission in principle may be granted for housing-led development which includes integral open space and landscaping. Those elements do not prevent the proposal from being residential development, particularly where they are not themselves development. Planning suitability at the permission-in-principle stage is not required to be assessed in isolation from matters which will be secured through technical details consent. Such matters may inform the evaluative judgment on location, land use and amount of development, including where the permission is suitable only because specified benefits are delivered at the second stage.

The local planning authority sought permission for statutory review of an inspector’s decision allowing a developer’s appeal and granting permission in principle for between five and nine dwellings on designated open space and a local site of nature conservation interest.

The inspector accepted that the proposal caused harm through loss of open space and diminished nature conservation value, but concluded that improved publicly accessible open space and biodiversity enhancement would provide sufficient planning benefits. The authority argued that the description of the development placed it outside the statutory scope of permission in principle, and that the inspector had unlawfully relied on matters capable of being secured only at the technical-details stage.

1. The renewed application was dismissed. The inspector’s decision was not arguably unlawful, unreasonable or inadequately reasoned.
2. Under the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017, permission in principle may be granted for residential development of land. Residential development means development whose main purpose is housing development and which is for the provision of dwellings. A proposal described as including associated open space and landscaping remains residential development where those features are integral to the housing-led scheme. Open space and landscaping were common ground not to be development themselves. They therefore did not trigger the requirement concerning non-housing development under article 5A(3)(b).
3. The statutory distinction between permission in principle and technical-details consent does not create a hard-edged rule requiring planning suitability to be assessed wholly in isolation from second-stage matters. The decision-maker must consider the matters relevant to location, land use and amount of development. It is an evaluative judgment for the decision-maker to determine what is relevant and how it informs suitability.
4. Matters which will need to be secured at the technical-details stage may inform the permission-in-principle decision. Suitability may therefore be determined on the basis that specified open-space or biodiversity benefits will be delivered, provided the inspector gives adequate reasons and identifies those benefits as material to the planning judgment.
5. The inspector had addressed the principal controversial issues raised by the authority, including the quantum of replacement open space and protection and enhancement of the nature conservation value of the SINC. The inspector’s reasons made clear that improved public access, landscaping and biodiversity were the basis for concluding that the proposal was suitable in principle.
6. Although those benefits were not part of the terms of the permission in principle under section 70(2ZZB)(b), they could properly inform the authority’s second-stage decision. If the developer failed to deliver them satisfactorily, that failure could justify refusal of technical-details consent.

1. Planning inspector: Allowed the developer’s appeal, reference APP/Y5420/W/23/3321012, and granted permission in principle for residential development of between five and nine dwellings.
2. High Court (Planning Court): Dismissed the renewed application for permission for statutory review.