R (on the application of Holborn Studios Limited) v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin)

Holborn Studios is an important Planning Court case on amended planning applications and reconsultation. The court held that the question is not simply whether an amendment is a fundamental or substantial change. The key question is what fairness requires in the circumstances.

Neutral citation

[2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin)

Court

High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Planning Court

Judgment date

10th November 2017

Judge

John Howell QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Case number

CO/6434/2016; CO/113/2017

What happened at Eagle Wharf?

The case concerned a mixed-use redevelopment at Eagle Wharf beside the Regent’s Canal in Hackney. The application was amended after the original public consultation. The May 2016 changes altered the mix of uses, increased the proposed B1 floorspace by 34%, reduced the number of homes by 22% and removed all of the affordable housing that had originally been proposed.

Hackney did not carry out a fresh public consultation on those amendments. The planning sub-committee later resolved to grant permission, subject to a section 106 agreement, and permission was issued in November 2016.

Holborn Studios, an existing occupier of the site, and Del Brenner brought separate judicial review claims which were heard together.

When does an amended planning application need reconsultation?

The court rejected the idea that reconsultation depends only on whether an amendment amounts to a “fundamental change”, a “substantial difference”, or makes the development something different in substance from what was originally applied for.

Those questions can matter when deciding whether an amendment can lawfully be accepted at all, but they are not the complete test for consultation. A change can fall short of creating a fundamentally different development and still affect matters on which neighbours or other consultees may reasonably want to comment.

John Howell QC held that, where there is a statutory duty to consult, whether a changed proposal requires further consultation depends on what fairness requires. Relevant factors include the purpose of the consultation, the nature and extent of the changes and their possible significance for those who might wish to make representations.

What fairness required in Holborn Studios

The judge found that Hackney had asked the wrong question. Officers appeared to have treated the amendments as positive changes which would not cause significant adverse effects. That did not answer whether people who had been entitled to comment on the application had been deprived of the opportunity to make representations on the amended scheme.

The amendments were not insignificant. They changed the proposed mix of uses, housing numbers and affordable housing, and led to 16 new plans and changes to numerous supporting documents. In those circumstances, the failure to reconsult deprived interested people of an opportunity to comment on the development that was actually going to be determined.

The judgment is also a useful warning about transparency. The court examined documents relied on in support of the application which had not been made available as the council’s Statement of Community Involvement said they would be. Holborn Studios received only redacted copies shortly before the committee meeting, limiting its opportunity to challenge the weight placed on them.

Why the permission was quashed

The court found the failure to reconsult on the May 2016 amendments unlawful. It was not satisfied that the outcome would highly likely have been substantially the same if a fair consultation process had taken place. The judicial review claims therefore succeeded and the planning permission was quashed.

This matters because a council cannot avoid reconsultation merely by deciding for itself that amendments are beneficial or unlikely to cause harm. The practical question is whether, without further consultation, people entitled to participate lose a fair opportunity to make representations about the changed proposal.

What Holborn Studios means in practice

• There is no automatic rule that every amendment requires a fresh consultation
• Equally, the absence of a “fundamental” change does not automatically mean that reconsultation can be skipped
• The nature and extent of the amendments, and their significance to people who may wish to comment, matter
• A council should consider what fairness requires before deciding not to reconsult
• Objectors should keep checking the planning register because amended plans and supporting information may arrive after the original consultation

For the wider rules on publicity and consultation, see our guide to neighbour consultation on planning applications. Our page on how to object to a planning application explains how to turn a concern into a focused planning representation.

Read the full Holborn Studios judgment

The approved judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold members can download the locally hosted PDF below.

Related Planning Geek guidance

• How to object to a planning application
• Publicity and neighbour consultation
• Planning application reconsultation
• The planning register
• Planning officer reports
• Judicial review and planning decisions

Page Updated: 23rd September 2026