Premier League fails in legal challenge to planning permission for scheme near ground

Tottenham Hotspur Football Club has lost a challenge to the London Borough of Haringey’s grant of planning permission to developer Landlease for a large scheme near its stadium.

The council told Mr Justice Saini in the High Court that the development corresponded with its planning policy for the site, which sought a master planned and comprehensive development, creating a large new residential neighbourhood of 2,929 homes, including affordable housing, associated amenities and a new public square.

Spurs gained permission for judicial review firstly on the basis that Haringey failed to lawfully assess heritage impacts of the development.

Its second ground was split into two: that Haringey unlawfully relied upon the s.106 agreement and planning conditions to determine that crowd control matters for the stadium would be appropriately addressed; and that it failed to lawfully apply the 'agent of change’ principle.

In Tottenham Hotspur Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Haringey [2023] EWHC 2569 (Admin) Saini J said: “Stripped to its essentials, the claimant's complaint under Ground 1 is a simple one. It is said that the council failed to consider the heritage impacts of the elements of the development proposed to be located in the Goods Yard and the Depot parts of the site.”

The club argued there was no assessment by Haringey of the impact of the totality of the development on the North Tottenham Conservation Area, or a number of nearby listed buildings.

Rejecting this, Sani J said: “The overall assessment of the level of harm was that the scheme would result in medium to high level of less than substantial heritage harm.”

He added: “It was concluded that the public benefits of the proposal outweighed the identified heritage harm, notwithstanding the considerable weight to be attached to this; and therefore the ‘tilted balance’ [in] the National Planning Policy Framework applied.”

Turning to the first part of the second ground, Saini J said crowd control for a stadium that can hold 70,000 people was “plainly a matter of substantial importance”.

Spurs argued officers misled councillors as to the requirements that would be placed on Spurs for crowd control and that additional burdens for this from the development were different to those stated.

Saini J said Haringey was lawfully satisfied that the planning permission created a framework which would ensure that the access to the stadium would be satisfactorily achieved without unreasonable impact on the club.

He found Haringey was also lawfully satisfied that the combination of the s.106 agreement and the conditions would adequately safeguard the club’s interests and planning consent was therefore compatible with the ‘agent of change’ principle.

The judge noted: “The principle does not demand that there be no impact upon existing businesses caused by a new development but requires a judgment as to whether they will be subjected to 'unreasonable restrictions’.

“There is no proper basis to impugn, in public law terms, the council’s judgment in this regard."

Mark Smulian