Summary of Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment, delivered by Judge [Last Name] on 21 November 2025, concerns an application for judicial review by Company A (the Applicant) challenging the decision of the Respondent dated 13 November 2024 refusing permission for a planning application (referred to in the opinion as Phase 2). The development site was split into two separate planning applications (Phase 1 and Phase 2) for the same overall scheme. The opinion records an inference that the split was undertaken, at least in part, to avoid strategic housing development thresholds.

The Applicant applied to the local planning authority for permission to construct build-to-rent apartments at a site in The City in October 2022 (Phase 2). The local authority refused permission in December 2022. The Applicant appealed both Phase 1 and Phase 2 decisions to the Respondent. Inspectors recommended grant for both phases. The Respondent, after inviting and receiving submissions, issued decisions on 13 November 2024 refusing permission for both Phases. The Applicant brought two separate judicial review proceedings: this case (challenging Phase 2 refusal) and a related case challenging Phase 1 (the Phase I judgment). The two judicial reviews were heard together on 6 November 2025 and judgment was reserved. The present judgment is to be read alongside the Phase I judgment and largely follows from it.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent irrationally or unlawfully concluded that the site was in "relative isolation from high frequency public transport" and thereby misapplied or misinterpreted the 2024 Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements Guidelines (core ground 1).
2. Whether the Respondent failed to provide adequate reasons for disagreeing with the Inspector's conclusion that the site was an "accessible location" within Table 3.8 of the 2024 Guidelines, in breach of s.34(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the obligation to give reasons (core ground 2).
3. Whether the Respondent failed to identify the basis for its conclusion that the proposed layout represented a "poor disposition of units on the overall site", contrary to statutory and constitutional requirements to give reasons (core ground 3).

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Inspector applied the 2024 Guidelines correctly, finding the site within 500 metres of high frequency public transport and thus an "accessible location" such that densities up to 150 dph were open for consideration; the Respondent's contrary conclusion lacked evidential support.
• The Respondent misinterpreted Table 3.8 of the Guidelines and failed to explain any departure from the stated definition, thereby denying the Applicant adequate reasons for a central issue in the appeal.
• The Inspector gave detailed reasons approving the proposed layout; the Respondent's brief reference to a "poor disposition of units" lacked reasoning and did not identify the Development Plan or guideline provisions relied upon.
• The Applicant argued that, if the court were to overturn the Respondent's finding on accessibility, the density-related conclusions that flowed from that finding would also fall.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent submitted that the concurrent density across both Phases was 184 dwellings per hectare and that the Applicant did not challenge that calculation; 184 dph exceeds the ranges in Table 3.1 of the 2024 Guidelines irrespective of whether the site qualified as "accessible".
• The Respondent argued that Table 3.8 contemplates a local, case-by-case assessment of "accessible location" and that it properly concluded the site was in "relative isolation from high frequency public transport"; it provided reasons sufficient to satisfy s.34(10)(b) and constitutional requirements.
• On layout, the Respondent asserted it identified the particular concern as the "poor disposition of units on the overall site" when considering the two concurrent applications as separate proposals; the Applicant understood the basis of that decision and the obligation to give reasons was discharged.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by noting the factual circumstances: the developer divided the overall scheme into two concurrent applications and that inspectors had recommended grant for both Phases. The Respondent refused both applications, principally on the basis that each half, taken alone, produced an inappropriate density and a "poor disposition of units" and that the site was in relative isolation from high frequency public transport.

The court considered a preliminary submission by the Respondent that the Applicant had not challenged all reasons for refusal—particularly the density calculation aggregating both Phases—but declined to treat that as necessarily fatal to the judicial review application. However, the court emphasised that many of the key points in the present case corresponded directly to grounds decided in the Phase I judgment.

On core ground 1 (misinterpretation/irrationality), the court recorded the parties' opposing positions: the Applicant relied on the Inspector's finding that the site fell within 500 metres of high frequency public transport and thus qualified as "accessible", while the Respondent relied on a case-by-case assessment under Table 3.8 and concluded the site was in "relative isolation". The court concluded that this ground corresponded to the equivalent ground in the Phase I judgment and failed for similar reasons (the opinion states no further elaboration is necessary).

On core ground 2 (reasons on accessibility), the court similarly treated this as corresponding to the Phase I ground and held it failed for the same reasons set out in the companion judgment. The court recorded the Respondent's contention that it had provided specific reasoning tied to the finding of relative isolation and that the statutory obligation to give reasons was discharged.

On core ground 3 (lack of reasons on layout), the court again noted the competing explanations: the Applicant argued the Inspector had given detailed reasons and the Respondent's terse reference to "poor disposition" lacked detail; the Respondent argued its reason related to viewing each Phase separately and that the Applicant understood the objection. The court held this ground corresponded to the Phase I ground and failed for similar reasons.

The court also addressed procedural matters concerning the circulation of a draft judgment: it described the limited scope for comments on drafts, restricted circulation, and the immediate effective direction prohibiting wider publication, relying on cited authorities.

Ultimately, the court summarised that the points in this judicial review failed for the same reasons as set out in the Phase I judicial review and that no further elaboration was necessary in this judgment.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The court ordered that the proceedings be PROCEEDINGS DISMISSED (i.e., the Applicant's judicial review challenge to the Respondent's decision of 13 November 2024 refusing permission for Phase 2 was dismissed).

Consequences and immediate implications:

• The proceedings were dismissed and the order provided for perfection of the order on the basis of no order as to costs unless any party applies otherwise within 7 days.
• The court directed that perfection of the substantive order be postponed pending any post-judgment applications and listed the matter for further review on 1 December 2025.
• The judgment expressly states that the issues in this case survive or fail for the same reasons as set out in the Phase I judgment; the present decision does not purport to establish novel precedent beyond the legal reasoning recorded in the companion judgment.

No broader policy or novel legal principle was announced in this opinion beyond the determination that the Applicant's challenges fail for the reasons set out in the Phase I judgment and the court's procedural directions regarding draft judgments and costs as recorded above.