Mohammed Bashir v The London Borough of Newham
Decision date: 5 June 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 146 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned Mr Bashir's challenge to the London Borough of Newham's "nil" CAAD certificate for land at 117 and 119–121 High Street, Stratford and what notional redevelopment a reasonable planning authority could have permitted at the valuation date. The Tribunal held the appellant's predominantly residential notional schemes conflicted with the development plan (notably employment-cluster and site-allocation policies) and would cause unacceptable heritage and townscape harm, and substituted its own appropriate-alternative development: a mostly commercial three-block scheme with specified heights, 8,214 sqm GIA non-residential floorspace, conditions and planning contributions. The appeal was allowed and Newham's certificate cancelled and replaced accordingly.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The Tribunal applied fresh planning judgment to determine what a reasonable planning authority could have permitted at the valuation date, enforcing the development plan: site-allocation SA4.2 and employment-cluster B.1b7 can preclude substantial residential development within the allocation/LSIS even where nearby permissions exist, and proposals causing less-than-substantial but significant heritage harm require sufficiently substantial public benefits to justify departure from employment and heritage protections.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment observes that CAAD applications need not replicate the full detail of a planning application but must show, on the balance of probabilities, that permission would likely be granted; design detail can sometimes be reserved. It also comments that existing permissions (eg Strand East) inform but do not override allocation boundaries and that reasonable authorities may legitimately require proportionate infrastructure contributions at an early stage where allocation policies identify specific works (junctions/bridges).