High Court gives green light for judicial review challenging use of non-material amendment in Aylesbury Estate regeneration

A High Court judge has granted permission on the papers for a judicial review of the London Borough of Southwark's decision to approve a "non-material amendment" under s.96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in order to demolish a 1960s estate.

In January of this year, the London borough granted planning permission for the next phase of the redevelopment of the Aylesbury Estate (Phase 2B), which involves the demolition of five buildings, including the claimant's home.

The claim centres around a section 96a non-material amendment the London borough made to the estate's 2015 outline planning permission, which adds the word "severable" to the permission.

This makes it easier for the developer to "mix and match" new planning permissions across the estate that differ from the original master plan, according to the claimant and their solicitors at the Public Interest Law Centre.

Ms Justice Lang gave permission for one ground to be heard, which contends that the council acted unreasonably in deciding that the addition of the word "severable" was not a material change to the outline planning permission.

Solicitors at PILC argue that the decision to accept the amendment to the outline planning permission subverts the Supreme Court's ruling in Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30, which found that a planning permission to develop a plot of land is not severable into separate permissions applicable to discrete parts of the wider site unless the permission clearly says so.

In a statement on the permission, PILC said: "The claim will likely deal with the implications of Hillside for 'drop in' planning permissions and the amendment of large outline schemes more generally. In particular, the Court is expected to give guidance on whether a phasing plan and/or the outline nature of the scheme means that it is necessarily 'severable', as discussed in Hillside."

Alexandra Goldenberg and Saskia O'Hara of the Public Interest Law Centre and Alex Shattock of Landmark Chambers are acting for the claimant.

Adam Carey