Judge refuses permission for legal challenge to Inner Temple planning permission

The High Court has refused permission for a judicial review of the Corporation of the City of London’s grant of planning permission for educational facilities in the Inner Temple Treasury Building, which involves the loss of the upper gallery of its library, it has been reported.

Landmark Chambers said that although constructed after the Second World War, the library is considered a notable feature of the Treasury Building, and the planning committee accepted that its loss would harm it but felt the scheme’s benefits outweighed this.

The proposal attracted opposition from some lawyers and environmental groups, and a bid was made to take the matter to judicial review.

This argued that the planning committee failed to take account of alternative proposals, failed to give adequate reasons for its decision, failed to consider properly the impact of temporary construction structures on surrounding heritage assets and had been procedurally unfair not to allow objectors to respond to comments made by the applicant at the planning committee. 

Zack Simons of Landmark Chambers appeared for the Corporation of the City of London, Paul Brown QC for the Inner Temple and Neil Cameron QC also acted for the City of London.

Rejecting all four arguments, Mr Justice Ouseley said the planning officer’s report had contained a full and careful analysis of the alternatives considered by the Inner Temple, in which officers had accepted the inn’s explanation for choosing the application scheme. 

The claimant’s case therefore hung upon a comment said to have been made by the chairman that the committee could not consider alternatives any further. 

But the judge said that was not a direction or ruling and was simply seeking to focus members’ attention on the task before them.  

He said the reasons for the decision were those in the officer’s report and were adequate.

The planning committee was plainly aware that temporary construction facilities would be needed and had made conditions as to their siting.

Ouseley J said it was sensible that applicants were given the opportunity to speak after objectors, so as to correct misunderstandings and there was nothing in the comments made by the Inn’s representatives which required a right of reply.

Mark Smulian