High Court grants permission to house builders for challenge over Article 31 order by Transport Secretary on development site

Mr Justice Chamberlain said it was normally not necessary to give reasons for granting permission but “in the exceptional circumstances of this case, I consider that it may assist the parties, and the judge at the substantive hearing, if I make some brief observations at this stage”.

The case is being brought by house builders Bridgemere Land, Castle Green Homes and Bridgemere UK over land at Thelwall Heyes, in Warrington.

They claim the Department for Transport (DfT) issued a direction against giving planning consent designed to avoid triggering blight protection provisions.

The land is allocated in the Warrington Local Plan for residential development and Castle Green Homes applied for planning permission for 330 homes.

But in June 2025, the DfT contacted Warrington to discuss purchasing the site for a possible Liverpool to Manchester rail link, part of the proposed Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Talks followed on an option agreement, which would have prevented development for 12 months, and given the Secretary of State an option to buy the site for £60.48m while also preserving the DfT’s ability to issue a safeguarding direction.

The claimants expected the planning application to be considered on 15 January 2026.

But two days earlier the Secretary of State issued a direction under Article 31 of the Town and County Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 preventing the grant of planning permission for six months. No reasons were given.

Warrington’s planning committee could still though consider the application and resolved to grant consent subject to provisions for blighted land.

Chamberlain J said: “In broad terms, the owner of such land can force the Secretary of State to acquire the land and there are provisions for determination of its value in the event of a dispute.”

He said the housebuilders’ challenged the Article 31 direction on the grounds that it was made for an improper purpose, was irrational and was incompatible with their rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR.

The Secretary of State submitted this claim was unarguable and totally without merit and that it only sought to delay consideration of the application.

Chamberlain J said: “The starting point for consideration of arguability is that it is at least unusual - and possibly unprecedented…to use the Article 31 power without triggering the statutory blight provisions in circumstances where the land is …potentially required for development by the Secretary of State for public purposes.”

He said it was at least arguable, and with a reasonable prospect of success, that it is unlawful to make an Article 31 direction expressed so as not to trigger the statutory blight provisions.

It was also arguable that the direction was given “without adequate consideration of the impacts on the claimants”.

The third ground concerning the ECHR was “much more marginal”. But Chamberlain J said: “I would not, however, shut out completely the argument that what happened here involved an interference or control on the use of property, if the matter is viewed as one of substance rather than form…”

He added: “The point is sufficiently arguable to justify the grant of permission.”

Chamberlain J went on to note that the DfT had issued a further Article 31 direction preventing a grant of planning permission until after 30 October 2026, with powers to extend this restriction further.

“Whilst not technically relevant to the strength of the claimants' challenge, this shows that the present challenge is, at this stage, far from academic,” he said.

Mark Smulian