• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Government succeeds against judicial review of permitted development and use class changes

The High Court has handed down judgment in a case brought by Rights Community Action group (RCA) against the recent changes to the Use Classes Order and General Permitted Development Order – the claim has been dismissed and the changes remain in force. 

RCA had sought an order quashing 3 statutory instruments (SIs) amending the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) and the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (UCO) made by the Government on 20 July 2020, laid before Parliament on 21 July 2020 and which came into force on 31 August 2020, or, in the case of the amendments to the UCO, on 1 September 2020. The changes to the GPDO included new permitted development rights involving the construction of one or two additional residential storeys above certain types of premises and permitting the demolition of a block of flats or certain commercial buildings and rebuilding for residential use. The amendments to the UCO introduced, amongst other changes, a new commercial, business and service Use Class, with the effect that changes of use of buildings or land within that Class are removed from development control.

In the rolled up hearing, RCA had argued that the SIs were approved too quickly and without proper consideration of the potential damage they could do, alleged that the changes had been pushed through without an adequate assessment of the environmental and equality consequences and raised concerns that the changes will lead to the creation of “slum housing” – as the Government’s own report into the use of permitted development rights has suggested.

However, Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Holgate ruled that all three SIs had been made lawfully, emphasising that the role of the court in judicial review is concerned with resolving questions of law and not for making political, social, or economic choices. Those decisions are entrusted to ministers and other public bodies.

Recognising the significant environmental impacts the changes will have, the judges agreed that this ground was arguable however, dismissed the ground on this basis that none of the SIs constitute a “plan or programme setting the framework for future development consents” within the meaning of article 3(4) of EU Directive 2001/42/EC. There was therefore no requirement for the SIs to be subject to an environmental assessment. 

In considering the public sector equality duty, the Court held that there was “no realistic prospect” of RCA establishing that there had been any failure to have due regard to the Equality Act 2010 and this ground also failed.

In response to one of RCA’s final grounds, the judges found that good and proportionate reasons were established for not having a second round of consultation (despite an earlier promise by the Government to do so).  The Court sided with the Government taking “urgent action” in respect of the changes to permitted development rights “in order to stimulate regeneration at a time of great economic difficulty arising out of the pandemic” which had generated “an economic emergency and upheaval on a scale not previously known in peacetime”.  Again, the judges agreed that this point was arguable but having established good and proportionate reasons, this ground was also dismissed.

The outcome at this stage is that the SIs remain in place and the new permitted developments rights and use class changes may continue to be relied on. However, there are reports that the claimant is considering taking the matter to the Court of Appeal so the battle is not yet won.

This article was written by Dan Murphy. For more information, please contact Dan on +44 (0)20 7438 2213 or at dan.murphy@crsblaw.com.

Our thinking

  • IBA Annual Conference 2025

    Simon Ridpath

    Events

  • Alumni Drinks Reception

    Events

  • London International Disputes Week: Trusts hurt: the fraud lawyer, the trust, and the avenues of attack (and defence)

    Tamasin Perkins

    Events

  • London International Disputes Week: Navigating International M&A Disputes: Insights and Strategies for 2025

    Stephen Burns

    Events

  • UK Real Estate Opportunities for Asia Capital

    Simon Green

    Events

  • Women in Leadership: Prima Facie

    Events

  • UK Immigration Reform – deeper restrictions on the horizon

    Paul McCarthy

    Quick Reads

  • The Court of Arbitration for Sport Appeals Procedure

    Benoît Pasquier

    Insights

  • Caroline Greenwell and Bella Henry write for Law 360 on the Santander fraud ruling and what it means for the UK banking sector

    Caroline Greenwell

    In the Press

  • Caroline Greenwell, Abigail Rushton and Bella Henry write for Solicitors Journal on the latest Business Plan from the Serious Fraud Office

    Caroline Greenwell

    In the Press

  • The Times quotes Hamish Perry on identity fraud on Companies House

    Hamish Perry

    In the Press

  • Non-Muslim Divorce in the UAE: Understanding UAE Divorce Law

    Miranda Fisher

    Insights

  • The new UK-India Free Trade Agreement – a significant development for both nations

    Kim Lalli

    Quick Reads

  • Spear's quotes Miranda Fisher on the Standish v Standish Supreme Court hearing

    Miranda Fisher

    In the Press

  • The New Era of Offices Post-Pandemic

    Sarah Morley

    Quick Reads

  • Harriet Betteridge, Lauren Clarke, Gregoire Uldry and Alexia Egger Castillo write for the Law Society Gazette on assisted dying

    Harriet Betteridge

    In the Press

  • Tamasin Perkins and Lydia Kember write for Charity Finance on the collapse of Kids Company

    Tamasin Perkins

    In the Press

  • So the UK tax rules have changed: what does this mean for US people?

    Sangna Chauhan

    Insights

  • The Daily Telegraph quotes Kelvin Tanner on wealthy Americans relocating to the UK

    Kelvin Tanner

    In the Press

  • Foundations Across Borders: A Global Perspective

    Grégoire Uldry

    Insights

Back to top