District council threatened with judicial review over consents for 10,000-home garden town

East Herts District Council is facing a judicial review action over planning consents for part of the Harlow and Gilston Garden Town project.

The council did not say who had launched the action or why, although it has been locally reported that a member of the public is behind this rather than any amenity group.

The council’s statement said: ”As the planning authority for the Gilston development, we can confirm that a claim has been submitted for a judicial review of the council’s decision to grant planning permission for both outline applications.”

It has given planning permission for 10,000 new homes in the Gilston area, with 8,500 homes for social landlord Places for People across six villages and 1,500 homes for developer Taylor Wimpey in a seventh village.

Vicky Glover-Ward, executive member for planning and growth, said the 10,000 homes would be “an important step in achieving sustainable growth in East Herts, and the wider Harlow and Gilston Garden Town”.

Harlow and Gilston Garden Town is a partnership between East Herts, Harlow and Epping Forest councils and Hertfordshire and Essex county councils intended to provide 16,000 new homes by 2034.

East Herts and Harlow in 2022 defeated an attempt to take them to judicial review over aspects of the project.

Mrs Justice Lang ruled then in the High Court then that all six grounds argued by local landowner Roger Beaumont failed.

Mr Beaumont had sought to challenge permissions given by both councils for a new bridge over the River Stort and associated works.

He owns land at Gilston, which would be affected by the proposed developments.

His first ground was that two new river crossings had been given consent without the councils using conditions to ensure they would deliver the claimed benefits.

Lang J said this was unarguable because the council had a broad discretion under section 70(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to impose such conditions as they think fit.

The second ground “made essentially the same point as in Ground 1”, Lang J said, deeming this to also be unarguable.

Mr Beaumont’s third ground concerned alleged inadequacy in the Environmental Impact Assessment.

Lang J said: “In my view it is clear that there was a difference in professional judgment between the claimant's transport consultants and the defendants regarding modelled predictions of mode share shift. The defendants were entitled to reach the conclusions that they did, which do not disclose any arguable error of law.”

She also rejected arguments that Harlow’s planning committee received erroneous legal advice from planning officers  and that a listed building consent report was flawed.

Mark Smulian