The Spitalfields Historic Building Trust, R. (on the application of) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2025] UKSC 11 (26 March 2025)

A heritage trust challenged planning permission for a development in a conservation area, arguing the council failed its statutory duty to give 'special attention' to heritage. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying 'special attention' requires conscious focus, not overriding weight.

Facts

The case concerned a planning application for a large mixed-use development on the site of the Old Truman Brewery in Spitalfields, London. The site is located within the Spitalfields and Brick Lane Conservation Area. The proposed development included office space, retail units, and a gym, involving the demolition of some existing buildings and the construction of a new five-storey building. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ planning officer produced a detailed report which acknowledged that the development would cause some harm to the conservation area but concluded that the public benefits of the scheme outweighed this harm. The council’s planning committee accepted this recommendation and granted planning permission. The Spitalfields Historic Building Trust, a charity dedicated to preserving the area’s architectural heritage, sought judicial review of this decision, arguing it was unlawful.

Issues

The central legal issue was the correct interpretation and application of the statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This section requires that in exercising planning functions with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, ‘special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area’. The appellant Trust argued that this duty requires the decision-maker to give ‘great weight’ or ‘considerable importance and weight’ to the desirability of preservation, and that the council had failed to do so. The council and the developer contended that the duty was one of process, requiring focused consideration but not dictating the weight to be given to heritage impacts in the final planning balance.

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, with the leading judgment delivered by Lord Carnwath. The court undertook a detailed analysis of the statutory framework and relevant case law, including South Lakeland DC v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 2 AC 141 and Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northants DC [2014] EWCA Civ 137.

The Meaning of ‘Special Attention’

The court clarified that the duty under section 72(1) for conservation areas is different and less stringent than the duty under section 66(1) of the same Act concerning listed buildings. The latter creates a ‘strong presumption’ against granting permission that harms a listed building’s setting. In contrast, the section 72(1) duty does not create such a presumption or mandate that heritage considerations be given overriding weight. Lord Carnwath held that the duty is primarily procedural, requiring the decision-maker to give conscious and specific consideration to the statutory objective of preservation.

The subject of the ‘special attention’ is the ‘desirability of preserving or enhancing…’. To my mind that directs the decision-maker to the statutory objective, and requires him to give it specific and focused consideration in carrying out the planning balance, but it does not dictate the weight to be given to it.

The court reasoned that it is for the planning authority, as the expert decision-maker, to assess the extent of any harm and weigh it against the public benefits of a proposed development. The role of the court in a judicial review is not to re-take the decision but to ensure that the process was lawful and that the statutory duty was correctly understood and applied.

Application to the Officer’s Report

The Supreme Court examined the planning officer’s report and concluded that it was a lawful and sufficient basis for the committee’s decision. The court found that the officer had clearly identified the statutory duty under section 72(1), correctly assessed the impact of the development on the conservation area as ‘less than substantial harm’, and carried out a detailed balancing exercise, weighing this harm against the significant public benefits identified (such as employment opportunities and investment). The report demonstrated that ‘special attention’ had indeed been paid to the desirability of preserving the area’s character, even though the final recommendation favoured the development. Therefore, the council had not erred in law.

Implications

This judgment provides significant clarity on the scope of the statutory duty relating to development in conservation areas. It confirms that while the preservation of a conservation area’s character is a mandatory and important consideration requiring specific focus, it is not a paramount or overriding factor. The decision reinforces the established planning principle that decision-making involves a balancing exercise where heritage impacts must be weighed against other material considerations, such as economic and social benefits. This provides greater certainty for local planning authorities and developers when assessing proposals in conservation areas, distinguishing the legal test clearly from the more stringent test applied to listed buildings.

Verdict: The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the Trust’s appeal, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal and the lawfulness of the council’s grant of planning permission.

Source: The Spitalfields Historic Building Trust, R. (on the application of) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets & Anor [2025] UKSC 11 (26 March 2025)