Law centre hails reversal of decision to grant non-material amendment to planning permission for football stadium

This change would have removed the maximum storey heights and unit numbers in the description of development.

The claim became academic, but Mrs Justice Lieven said it was arguable the change would have been unlawful.

PILC said planning permission was granted in February 2022 to redevelop the stadium, including a series of residential buildings between four and six storeys to provide 219 homes.

In July 2025, the developer applied for a ‘non-material amendment’ to the 2022 planning permission, under s96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to remove the references to maximum storey heights and unit numbers in the description of the development.

Southwark granted this in December 2025, on the basis that the height and unit numbers had simply been moved from the description of development to the conditions imposed upon it.

But the PILC explained a developer can apply to amend conditions, or remove them entirely, via s.73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but a description of development cannot be amended in this way and the change opened up the possible loss of the height and unit restrictions.

Following a letter before claim, the developer applied to reverse the changes via a further non-material amendment to re-insert the storey height and unit number limits into the description of development. 

The PILC said the objector though still issued the claim as Southwark had to consult on the further amendment and the limitation period for issuing the claim would have expired during the consultation.

By the time the claim for judicial review came before a judge, Southwark had granted the second amendment, which meant the claim was now academic.

Lieven J agreed that it was arguable that a decision that increased the flexibility of a planning permission in this way was unlawful and said she would have been minded to grant permission for judicial review had the changes not been reversed. She did not make a costs order in favour of the council.

PILC’s client said: “It is disappointing that the claim cannot proceed but Mrs Justice Lieven’s view that the application was arguable and her comments with regard to the relief from costs confirm the appropriateness of making the application for judicial review.

"A significant motivation in taking legal action was the planning application’s negative effect on space for play and recreation on our community.”

A Southwark spokesperson said: “We note the comments by judge, however the project is proceeding as planned to build a new football stadium and pitch for Dulwich Hamlet.”

Mark Smulian