West Suffolk Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors [2025] EWHC 861 (Admin)
West Suffolk Use Class E is a leading Planning Court judgment on two parts of Class E: medical or health services provided principally to visiting members of the public, and research and development of products or processes.
Mrs Justice Lang dismissed West Suffolk Council’s statutory review. Specialist services did not fall outside Class E(e) merely because visitors required a referral, and the Inspector was entitled to treat the Animal Health Trust’s research activities as Class E(g)(ii).
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
- [2025] EWHC 861 (Admin); [2025] PTSR 1859
- Court
- High Court, King's Bench Division, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 10th April 2025
- Judge
- Mrs Justice Lang DBE
- Case number
- AC-2024-LON-002354
What West Suffolk decided
The dispute concerned the former Animal Health Trust site at Kentford, Suffolk. The approximately 120-acre site contained numerous buildings used for animal-health research, clinical services, diagnostics and related activities before the Trust ceased operating in 2020.
An Inspector allowed an appeal and granted a lawful development certificate for use of the site for Class E purposes. West Suffolk Council challenged that decision on the interpretation of Class E(e) and Class E(g)(ii).
The High Court rejected both grounds.
Referral does not stop someone being a visiting member of the public
Class E(e) covers medical or health services provided principally to visiting members of the public.
The council argued that the phrase required services to be available to people who could effectively walk in from the street without a prior restriction. On that approach, specialist animal-health services available only after veterinary referral would fall outside the class.
Mrs Justice Lang rejected that interpretation. The words are to be given their ordinary meaning and applied to the facts. A visitor does not cease to be a member of the public merely because an appointment, registration or referral is required before attendance.
Affiliation is more important than whether an appointment is needed
The phrase member of the public indicates someone attending without a special affiliation, employment relationship or membership status which gives the visit a different character.
The people bringing animals to the Trust were members of the public obtaining specialist services. A referral from another vet did not turn them into members of a closed organisation.
The court noted the obvious analogy with specialist medical consultants, where patients commonly attend after referral.
Research and development has its ordinary meaning
Class E(g)(ii) covers research and development of products or processes. The council argued that pure research aimed at increasing knowledge rather than producing a specific commercial product or process should fall outside the class.
The court held that the Inspector had been entitled to find the Animal Health Trust’s activities within Class E(g)(ii). Its research related to animal-health and welfare products and processes and could feed into products or processes developed by others.
The assessment was one of fact and degree rather than a narrow requirement that every research project must itself culminate in a marketable item.
A research paper can itself be a product
The Inspector had also treated research papers as products of the research activity. The High Court held that this was an available interpretation of the ordinary word product: a paper can be the output produced by a process of research.
Importantly, the judge added that even if this particular point had been wrong, the Inspector’s other factual findings provided a sufficient basis for the Class E(g)(ii) conclusion.
The whole site formed one planning unit
The evidence showed movement of staff, visitors and animals between buildings and functional links between research, clinical and other activities. The Inspector was entitled to regard the whole site as one planning unit rather than a series of isolated buildings.
That finding mattered because the Use Classes Order expressly allows Class E use or part use for its listed purposes.
The result was highly fact-specific
West Suffolk does not mean every veterinary practice, research institute or specialist clinic automatically falls within Class E. The judgment repeatedly emphasises applying the statutory words to the particular facts.
Different membership arrangements, functions, industrial effects or relationships between activities could produce a different planning classification.
For the current class and its full wording, see Planning Geek’s guide to Use Class E.
The challenge was dismissed
The court granted permission for statutory review because the issues justified full argument, but rejected both substantive grounds. The Inspector’s lawful development certificate therefore stood.
Read the full West Suffolk judgment
The full Planning Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
West Suffolk Use Class E Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026