Court of Appeal order brings end to decade-long planning dispute over site of photography studio

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by developer GHL (Eagle Wharf Road) over planning permission for the site of the former Holborn Studios, in Hackney.

Holborn Studios entered administration after the appeal was filed and no longer occupies the site, and told the Court of Appeal it had no interest in these proceedings.

The Secretary of State said it supported GHL’s appeal and Hackney took no part.

Landmark Chambers' Sasha White KC and Andrew Parkinson, who acted for the developer, said the dispute had lasted 11 years.

During this time there had been two grants of planning permission, two successful High Court challenges, a five-week public inquiry involving four adjournments, and a further challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

White and Parkinson said: “The case has been one of the most prominent planning disputes of recent years.

“The most recent planning permission was quashed by the High Court following a successful statutory challenge. The developer appealed that decision, and the Court of Appeal has now allowed the appeal, restoring the planning permission and bringing the litigation to a final conclusion in the developer's favour.”

In a consent order, Lord Justice Moylan, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Dove allowed the proposed mixed-use scheme for 5,591 square metres of commercial floorspace and 50 homes to proceed.

GHL had brought three grounds of appeal. The first was that the High Court had been wrong to find the reasons given by an inspector for refusing permission were “wholly unclear” and the judge failed to apply well established principles in assessing the inspector's reasoning.

Its second ground was that the judge fell into error in his interpretation of policies, as the inspector was entitled to consider re-provision of cultural activities at the site. This manly concerned a replacement for a high-end photographic studio but also various ancillary uses.

The third ground was the judge made several errors in deciding the inspector’s conclusions were irrational and failed to apply the high threshold for this.

GHL said it was open to the inspector to find that the proposed basement alone would comprise acceptable re-provision for the photographic studio.

Lord Justice Moylan, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Dove said the development plan required re-provision of cultural facilities at the site.

“There are no benchmarks or thresholds for what amounts to acceptable ‘re-provision’ in the policies,” the judges said.

"The policies do not require re-provision which is at least equivalent to that lost in both quantity and quality. Whether any proposed re-provision would be acceptable is a matter of planning judgment for the decision-maker.”

They said the inspector had concluded the development’s basement would provide suitable space for the photographic studios and this had been a rational finding.

Lord Justice Moylan, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Dove said: “The inspector was entitled to reach that judgment notwithstanding the fact that there was no planning obligation restricting the use of the basement to a photographic studio, in circumstances where the basement had been specifically designed for such a use and no party had argued that a planning obligation was required."

In the consent order the judges explained that the inspector’s reasons were adequate, her approach was focussed on re-provision and her overall judgment was not irrational.

Mark Smulian