Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council concedes environmental judicial review challenging grant of prior approval for demolition of 126 units of social housing
Public Law and Judicial Review, Planning and Environment
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (‘Rochdale’) has conceded a judicial review challenging the grant of prior approval under Class B of Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (‘Class B’) (‘GPDO’) on the basis that Rochdale “failed to properly consider and set out reasons for why the Development was not EIA Development that would require further consideration under the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017”.
Jeremy Ogilvie-Harris represented the successful Claimant, instructed by Oliver Edwards of Greater Manchester Law Centre. The case was funded by Legal Aid.
Background to the Redevelopment Project
The development in question was a major residential redevelopment project in Lower Fallinge, Rochdale, proposed by Rochdale Boroughwide Housing (‘RBH’), a registered provider of social housing. RBH had promoted a “Masterplan” in relation to the redevelopment project, and, in 2021, Rochdale adopted a Supplementary Planning Document (‘SPD’) for the regeneration project.
Redevelopment has been occurring in the area since around 2016. This had resulted in there being several empty plots of land following previous demolitions, which previously contained social housing, as well as some areas of redevelopment.
The most recent planning application was for prior approval for the demolition of six blocks of social housing comprising 126 units in the Lower Fallinge Estate under Class B (‘the Development’) (planning reference 25/00292/DEM). The demolition related to blocks located in the SPD Broad Area of Focus 1, which would see the redevelopment of 19 blocks in total, around 400 dwellings. The Masterplan identified the project as being Area 1 which mirrored SPD Broad Area of Focus 1 but excluded those sites which had already been redeveloped, covering 11 blocks of social housing.
On 29 April 2025, Rochdale decided that prior approval was required for the Development and granted prior approval, thereby crystalising planning permission subject to conditions.
Under article 3(10)-(11) of the GPDO, a development is not permitted under the GPDO where it is an Environmental Impact Assessment (‘EIA’) development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (‘the EIA Regs’).
For residential developments, schedule 2 to the EIA Regs sets out that “Urban development projects” which includes more than 150 dwellings are projects which might be subject to the EIA regime if such development is “likely to have significant effects on the environment”.
The prior approval decision stated that:
“The Local Planning Authority also note that the development does not fall under the requirements of EIA development as set out under Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017.”
Judicial Review and Grounds of Challenge
Two campaigners for the refurbishment and retention of social housing, and who are residents in an adjacent block and would be impacted by the demolition works, challenged the prior approval on four grounds, including that there was a failure to consider properly and to give adequate reasons as to why the Development was not subject to the EIA regime, breach of the Tameside duty in relation to whether paragraph B.1 of Class B was engaged, failure to comply with section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010, and a breach of section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly, article 14 within the ambit of article 8 of the Convention (due to the impact on the Claimants as disabled persons).
Under Ground 1, the Claimants’ argument was that RBH had been “salami slicing” its project to avoid the EIA regime. “Salami slicing” is the term used to describe when a project is split up amongst separate planning application which, on their own, do not constitute a development “likely to have significant effects on the environment” but, taken together, may do: see R. (on the application of Ashchurch Rural Parish Council) v Tewkesbury BC [2023] EWCA Civ 101; [2023] P.T.S.R. 1377.
Rochdale’s Concession and the Court’s Order
The simple point was that the demolition of the six blocks of social housing, and the broader demolition of over 400 units of social housing in total, could not seriously be said to be a standalone application, unconnected to the Masterplan which is described in the application for the Development as “a major residential redevelopment”. Indeed, RBH had expressly stated that the purpose of the demolition to be preparation for delivery of the Masterplan. This was similarly recognised by Rochdale in the SPD. This was a classic case of “salami slicing”.
It was argued that Rochdale had failed to properly consider and to give adequate reasons, by reference to the test set out in R. (on the application of Wingfield) v Canterbury City Council [2019] EWHC 1975 (Admin), [2020] J.P.L. 154, as to why the project should not be considered as covering Focus Area 1 in the SPD or, at least, Area 1 in the Masterplan, in light of the common ownership of land, the functional interdependence between the demolition and regeneration of the site, and the lack of justification of the demolition absent the promotion of the regeneration project.
Rochdale conceded the judicial review claim on the basis that Ground 1 had been made out and agreed for the prior approval decision to be quashed by order of HHJ Davies dated 05 September 2025. Grounds 2, 3 & 4 remain unventilated.
About the barrister
Jeremy Ogilvie-Harris is a public law and human rights barrister at Cornerstone Barristers with experience in public law, human rights and civil liberties within the sectors of protest, housing, homelessness and housing allocations, welfare benefits, planning and environment, energy, and information and data protection law. He has a busy judicial review practice, mostly representing claimants. He can be instructed by emailing teamgeorge@cornerstonebarristers.com.
