AC-2024-LON-002558 - [2025] EWHC 2278 (Admin)

For the Council Ms Nevin submitted that the starting point for considering this ground of claim was that the principle of development was already established by the GPDO. That being so, she submitted, the level of detail required as part of the prior approval process embedded into Part 6 was much less than was required for a planning application.

To require more detail than had been submitted would contravene the guidance in the PPG reminding the Council that the prior approval process was not the same as the planning application process. In support of this submission Ms Nevin relied again on the passage from the PPG at Paragraph: 028, which I have already quoted above in the context of Ground 1, and in particular the reference to the “light-touch” process pertaining to prior approval applications.

What is more, submitted Ms Nevin, the Report did include an assessment of the impact of the Works on the “character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area”, concluding that the impact was acceptable, and that because the ancient woodland formed part of the “surrounding area” this conclusion could reasonably be interpreted as encompassing the ancient woodland as well.

Ms Nevin submitted that no more than a permissibly benign reading of the Report was necessary to reach that conclusion.