Lazari Properties 2 Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 2026 (Admin)
Lazari planning condition case concerned whether an older condition controlling the mix of retail and restaurant uses at the Brunswick Centre continued to restrict the property after the 2020 creation of the much broader Use Class E.
Mr Justice Waksman held that the condition remained effective. Its meaning had to be read in the context of the permission, its purpose and the use classes in force when it was imposed.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2023] EWHC 2026 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 4th August 2023
- Judge
- Mr Justice Waksman
- Case number
- CO/3206/2022
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
The Brunswick Centre condition
A 2003 permission for works at the Brunswick Centre limited the proportion of retail floorspace which could be used for the then Classes A2 and A3. Its stated purpose was to safeguard the centre’s retail function and character.
After the 2020 amendments brought former A1, A2, A3 and B1 uses together within Class E, Lazari argued that occupiers should be free to move between those uses without being constrained by the old percentage limit.
Later use-class changes did not empty the condition of meaning
The High Court rejected the argument. The references to A2 and A3 had to be understood by reference to the uses they described when the permission was granted, rather than allowing the later creation of Class E to make the condition meaningless.
The court also upheld the Inspector’s conclusion that the condition, read in its full context and with its stated purpose, clearly restricted the otherwise automatic ability to move between the relevant uses.
Clear intention can be implied from the wording and context
Lazari is useful alongside Dunnett Investments and Trump International. A condition does not have to recite the name of the GPDO or Use Classes Order to restrict rights which would otherwise operate automatically, but the intention to do so must be sufficiently clear when the words are read in context.
The judgment is therefore not authority that every historic use restriction automatically survives later legislative change. The precise wording, purpose and planning context still matter.
Why Lazari matters now
The case is directly relevant when checking whether an old condition prevents a later permitted development or use-class route. The 2026 Delamere Class Q appeal applied the same line of authority when considering whether an agricultural-use condition excluded Class Q.
Read Planning Geek’s Delamere Class Q appeal report.
Read the judgment
The complete 21-page official High Court judgment, sourced from The National Archives, is available below for Gold members.
Lazari Case Law Page Updated: 26th September 2026