| Case Name: Chidswell Action Group, R (On the Application Of) v Kirklees Council [2025] EWHC 2256 (Admin)
Commentary: This decision relates to a challenge brought by Chidswell Action Group (Claimant) against Kirklees Council (LPA) in relation to the grant of outline planning permission for residential development of up to 181 dwellings on a 7-hectare site at Heybeck Lane, Dewsbury (OPP). The challenge arose following the LPA’s grant of OPP, which reserved matters to be dealt with by way of s106 agreement, including Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) obligations. The Claimant raised concerns that the BNG assessment was inaccurate and outdated, and that the LPA did not have sufficient information before it when granting OPP. The decision of His Honour Mr Justice Kerr turned on the failure of the LPA to publish a draft of the s106 agreement prior to being finalised. Kerr J found that this breach of article 40(3)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 prejudiced the Claimant and found at [173] that “there was a serious want of transparency in the period leading to the decision challenged, while the developer and the LPA were negotiating with each other and shielding the product of their negotiations from the public”. This decision reinforces the importance of draft s106 agreements to be published before the issue of permission and, whilst ultimately the responsibility of the LPA, should be in the forefront of developers’ minds when nearing completion on s106 agreements.
Full Commentary
Case summary prepared by Emily Clapp
Case Name: Green Lane Association Ltd v Central Bedfordshire Council [2025] EWHC 2251 (Admin) (02 September 2025)
Commentary: This was adetermination of an application made by the Central Bedfordshire Council (“Defendant”) for a declaration that the claim made by Green Lane Association Limited (“Claimant”) should not be classed as an Aarhus claim under the Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (“Aarhus Convention”). As part of this proceeding, the Defendant had made an application for an extension of time in relation to its application to file a challenge to the nature of the claim as an Aarhus Convention claim.
The Claimant had challenged an order made by the Defendant under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (“RTRA”). Importantly, the Claimant had complied with the rules to raise an Aarhus claim whereas the Defendant did not dispute the claim at the appropriate time. Instead, the Defendant raised the matter 21 days after receiving the AoS form. Judge Ridge rejected the Defendant’s application on the basis that the breach of the clear procedure rule was serious and significant, the lack of good reason, and the timing of the application.
Further, Judge Ridge considered whether the whether the claim falls within the Aarhus Convention provisions due to it being a dispute under the RTRA. Judge Ridge determined it was able to be captured by the Aarhus Convention due to the RTRA having regard to matters regarding protection and regulation of the environment
Full Commentary
Case summary prepared by Poppy Mitchell-Anyon
Case Name: Rickards, R (On the Application Of) v East Hertfordshire District Council [2025] EWHC 2278 (Admin) (05 September 2025)
Commentary: The Claimant’s judicial review against the grant of prior approval in respect of agricultural permitted development rights by East Hertfordshire Council for the erection of three polytunnels and related works was successful on the basis that certain designations in the vicinity (a listed building and ancient woodland) were not appropriately considered by the Council in making the decision to grant prior approval.
Facts
The Interested Party applied to East Hertfordshire District Council (the “Defendant”) for prior approval to erect three polytunnels and undertake related works (“Works”) on a plot of agricultural land at Bucksbury Farm, Bucks’s Alley, Hertfordshire (“Property”).
The land in the vicinity of the Works includes an open and forested area called Bayford Wood, which has been designated by Natural England as an “ancient woodland”. The Works are also located within an area designated as Metropolitan Green Belt.
The extent of the Works was significant. The polytunnels are large and measure 32 metres long by 8 metres wide, with eaves the height of 3.2 metres and a ridge height of 4.9 metres. The purpose of the Works was to provide a suitable environment for tomatillos to be grown at the Property. This would supplement the existing agricultural uses of the Property including fields for grazing and hay production, bee hives for honey production, and the cultivation of specialist wood-grown mushrooms.
Prior approval was obtained by the Interested Party and the Works were undertaken in reliance upon the permitted development rights conferred by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
The Claimant lives to the west of the Property in a Grade II listed building known as the Gage. Despite the authorising officer (“Officer”) granting prior approval on 25 April 2024, no site notice was erected by the Interested Party and so nobody was aware of the Council’s decision until 18 June 2024 when a local resident noticed heavy machinery at the Property. The Claimant states he did not become aware of the prior approval until 4 July 2024. The Claimant then filed the claim for judicial review on 26 July 2024.
Full Commentary
Case summary prepared by Poppy Mitchell-Anyon
|