High Court rules on planning law complexities

The case of West Suffolk Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2025] EWHC 861 (Admin) has significant implications for planning law, focusing on the legality of the Secretary of State's decision to grant a lawful development certificate (LDC) for land previously used by the Animal Health Trust in Kentford, Suffolk. The High Court's examination delves into Class E of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and highlights the nuances of planning legislation.

The dispute originated when the Council refused Lochailort Kentford Limited's application for an LDC after the AHT ceased operations in 2020. The Council initially denied the application, arguing that the proposed uses did not satisfy the criteria set forth in Class E. Following an appeal granted by an Inspector, the Council sought a judicial review, asserting that the Inspector had incorrectly interpreted Class E, specifically regarding medical services and the definitions of research and development.

The legal framework under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows aggrieved parties to challenge decisions outside the Act's scope. In her judgement, Mrs Justice Lang DBE outlined the necessity for focusing on the legal merits of decisions rather than planning merits, thereby reinforcing the judiciary's role in interpretation rather than decision-making.

Two key issues were addressed in the judgement. Firstly, whether the clinical services provided by AHT were considered accessible to "visiting members of the public." The Council's argument hinged on the referral basis of these services, but the Judge determined that the service recipients still qualified as visiting members of the public, expanding the interpretation of accessibility within the legal context of planning laws.

Secondly, the Judge considered whether research and development at the AHT fell within Class E's parameters. While the Council maintained that these activities were purely academic, the Judge assessed the evidence that demonstrated substantial outputs, such as research papers contributing to product development, supporting her argument that they qualified under Class E.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the review application by West Suffolk Council, solidifying the interpretation of planning law related to Class E uses. The judgement emphasises the importance of factual accuracy and contextual interpretation in navigating legal frameworks, indicating a progressive evolution in how planning law accommodates diverse public service provisions. This landmark decision is expected to serve as a critical reference for future cases concerning lawful development certificates and the intricacies of planning law in the UK