R (The Old Chiswick Protection Society) v London Borough of Hounslow [2026] EWHC 2278 (Admin)
Old Chiswick is an important Planning Court decision on consistency in planning decision-making, fallback schemes and the accuracy of officer reports.
The Court quashed Hounslow’s permission for a larger redevelopment at Burlington Lane because the committee had been given a misleading account of the merits of an earlier appeal scheme that was being treated as an important fallback position.
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 2278 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court, King's Bench Division, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 14th September 2026
- Judge
- HHJ Emma Kelly, sitting as a Judge of the High Court
- Case number
- AC-2026-LON-001002
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 implemented appeal scheme was an important fallback
An Inspector had previously allowed an appeal and granted permission for a 104-flat scheme at the site. That permission had been implemented and Hounslow’s officers treated it as a fallback carrying significant weight when recommending approval of a new, larger scheme.
The later proposal offered more homes, affordable housing and public realm improvements, but also caused less than substantial harm to several heritage assets. The comparison with the fallback therefore formed part of the planning balance.
The officer report misrepresented the Inspector’s findings
The earlier Inspector had reached favourable conclusions on matters including living conditions and design. Hounslow’s officer report and committee presentation nevertheless characterised aspects of that fallback scheme as poor design and poor-quality accommodation.
HHJ Emma Kelly held that, once the authority chose to rely heavily on the fallback scheme, the committee needed an accurate account of the Inspector’s conclusions. The report gave members a misleading picture of the fallback’s merits.
Consistency in decision-making mattered
The Court applied the established principle that consistency is an important aspect of rational planning decision-making. A decision-maker can reach a different planning judgment from an earlier Inspector, but where the same or materially similar issues are being assessed, a departure from the earlier conclusion requires proper recognition and adequate reasoning.
The committee did not need to rehearse every detail of the appeal decision. The problem was that the earlier findings were materially mischaracterised while the fallback was being given substantial weight.
The heritage balance could not safely stand
The fallback scheme was relevant to the balancing exercise under national heritage policy because the authority was comparing the public benefits and harms of the new proposal with what could lawfully be built instead.
Because the fallback’s benefits had been inaccurately presented, the error went to the heart of that planning balance.
The no-difference test did not save the permission
The Court rejected the argument that permission should remain in place because the committee would highly likely have reached the same decision anyway. Given the central role of the fallback scheme, reaching that conclusion would have required the Court to stray into the merits of the planning judgment.
The claim therefore succeeded and the planning permission was quashed.
Read the full Old Chiswick judgment
Planning Geek holds the approved Planning Court judgment in the protected case law library. Gold Members can open the PDF below.
Case Law Page Created: 26th September 2026