Lochailort Kentford Ltd v West Suffolk Council and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2026] EWHC 1870 (Admin)
Lochailort Kentford is a Planning Court case about the relationship between a Brownfield Land Register and the allocation of land through a Local Plan.
The court rejected the argument that West Suffolk had taken inconsistent positions by putting part of the former Animal Health Trust site into Part 1 of its Brownfield Land Register while declining to allocate the much larger promoted site for housing in the Local Plan.
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
- [2026] EWHC 1870 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 22nd July 2026
- Judge
- Mr Justice Coppel
- Case number
- AC-2025-LON-002829
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 former Animal Health Trust site was promoted for housing
Lochailort owned a large site at Kentford which had been used for animal-health research and services. It promoted around 15.9 hectares for mixed employment and residential development during preparation of the West Suffolk Local Plan.
The council did not allocate that wider site for housing. It considered that other sites in comparable Type A villages were more suitable and achievable, taking account of matters including listed-building setting, employment use and other constraints.
A smaller part later entered the Brownfield Land Register
In December 2024 the council put around 3.83 hectares, consisting of the existing buildings and their curtilages, into Part 1 of its Brownfield Land Register.
Part 1 requires, among other things, the land to be suitable, available and achievable for residential development.
Lochailort argued that this meant the council had effectively accepted the promoted site was suitable for housing, contrary to the position presented during the Local Plan examination.
The Local Plan judgment was comparative, not binary
Mr Justice Coppel rejected that argument.
The decisive Local Plan reasoning was not that no residential development could ever take place on the promoted site. The council’s Omission Sites Report concluded that other sites in Type A villages were more suitable and achievable.
There is no inconsistency between saying that some land is suitable for residential development and deciding that other land is preferable for allocation through a Local Plan.
The Brownfield Land Register covered only a small part of the promoted site
The court also stressed the mismatch in land area. Only 3.83 hectares of the 15.92-hectare promoted site had been entered in the Register.
West Suffolk’s site-selection methodology did not generally allocate only the suitable part of a larger site where the rest remained constrained. The Inspectors had expressly considered and accepted that approach.
Recognition that the existing brownfield buildings could support housing therefore did not undermine the council’s judgment about the wider promoted site.
Part 1 is not the same as a housing allocation or permission in principle
This distinction is particularly useful in practice.
Land in Part 1 of the Brownfield Land Register is identified as meeting the statutory criteria, including suitability for residential development. But it is not thereby allocated in the Local Plan.
Part 2 is different. Subject to the statutory process, entry in Part 2 can grant permission in principle for housing-led development. The land in Lochailort was only in Part 1.
The Register entry was not an obviously material consideration the Inspectors had to reopen
The Brownfield Land Register was updated after the examination hearings had closed. Neither Lochailort nor the council drew the change to the Inspectors’ attention.
The court held that the high public-law threshold was not met. The Register entry did not undermine the Omission Sites Report or make it irrational for the council and Inspectors to proceed without reopening the examination.
Mr Justice Coppel also held that, even if there had been a legal error, the same outcome would necessarily have followed on the facts.
Why Lochailort matters
The case is a useful warning against treating different planning processes as if they answer the same question.
A Brownfield Land Register asks whether land meets the statutory criteria for that Register. A Local Plan site-selection exercise asks which sites should actually be allocated when reasonable alternatives, spatial strategy, evidence and competing constraints are considered.
Suitability in the first process does not automatically dictate the answer in the second.
Read the full Lochailort judgment
The approved Planning Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Related Planning Geek guidance
See our guide to previously developed land and brownfield sites.
Lochailort Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026