Barbican Quarter Organisation Ltd v City of London Corporation [2026] EWHC 687 (Admin)
26 March 2026
We are pleased to report that the High Court has dismissed all three grounds of judicial review brought against the grant of planning permission for the London Wall West development - a landmark mixed-use regeneration project in the heart of the City of London.
Our client, the City of London Corporation in its capacity as landowner and developer, successfully defended the challenge alongside the City of London Corporation in its role as local planning authority. The judgment, handed down by Mr Justice Fordham on 26 March 2026, is a significant decision for local authority developers, EIA practitioners, and planning lawyers alike.
Background
The Interested Party applied for planning permission on 20 November 2023 for a phased mixed-use development at London Wall West, comprising the demolition of 140 and 150 London Wall and the construction of new buildings for office, cultural, and food and beverage use, together with public realm works, reconfiguration of the Rotunda roundabout, demolition of Ferroners House and the removal of two City Walkways. Because the City of London Corporation was both the applicant and decision-maker, questions of functional separation under the EIA Regulations and what is known as a "self-grant" of planning permission arose. The Claimant - Barbican Quarter Organisation Ltd - challenged the grant of permission on three grounds.
Ground 1: Functional Separation Under Regulation 64
Regulation 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 requires an authority bringing forward its own development proposal to make appropriate administrative arrangements ensuring functional separation between those promoting the proposal and those determining it. The Defendant published a five-page "Handling Note" to implement this duty. The parties agreed it addressed the four basic requirements of independence identified in London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Secretary of State [2020] EWHC 2580 (Admin).
The Court found a technical breach of the Handling Note: certain shared files were accessible to the Interested Party's officers, when they should not have been. However, the Court found as a matter of fact that no relevant officer had accessed any document that ought to have been restricted. The claim failed on this ground for three separate and independent reasons:
- No vitiating breach: A breach of Regulation 64(2) does not automatically vitiate a planning permission where it demonstrably can have had no bearing on the decision. The 'unlocked door' was never opened.
- Discretionary refusal of remedy: A quashing order would have been unjustifiable and disproportionate on the facts established by the evidence.
- Statutory materiality duty: Applying section 31(2A)(a) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Court of Appeal's analysis in R (Bradbury) v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority [2025] EWCA Civ 489, it was highly likely the outcome would not have been substantially different had the breach not occurred.
Grounds 2 and 3: Demolition Avoidance and Policy CS15
Part of Local Plan Policy CS15 includes a requirement of "avoiding demolition through the reuse of existing buildings or their main structures." The Claimant argued this operated as a presumption against demolition and that officers had misinterpreted it and misled the planning committee.
The Court firmly rejected the Claimant's argument. Policy CS15 sets out five integrated ways of creating a more sustainable City and must be read as a whole. Demolition does not, in and of itself, necessarily constitute a conflict with the policy. The Court endorsed the Carbon Optioneering methodology applied by the Interested Party, which assessed six development scenarios - including four retention options. This was a lawful approach and not a departure from policy. There was nothing materially misleading in the officers' advice to the committee.
On the third ground, the Claimant argued that officers had failed to make adequate enquiries into the results of a Soft Market Exercise conducted in April 2023, which it contended showed credible retrofit proposals had been advanced. The Court disagreed, finding that the Carbon Optioneering Study had expressly incorporated the learning from that exercise and that no reasonable planning authority, on the available material, would have concluded that further enquiry was required.
Key Implications
- EIA Functional Separation - Substance Over Form. A technical failure in implementing file accessibility arrangements will not automatically vitiate a planning permission where functional separation has been ensured in practice and where the evidence clearly establishes that the breach had no bearing on the decision. However, local authorities should treat this as a warning: the outcome here turned entirely on the evidence adduced and the facts in this case.
- Scope of Regulation 64(2). The Court confirmed that the duty to "design and deliver" appropriate administrative arrangements is ongoing, requiring both the design and practical implementation of effective separation throughout the decision-making process.
- Demolition Avoidance Policies - No Automatic Presumption. Whether demolition conflicts with a sustainability policy must be determined through an integrated, evaluative assessment of the policy as a whole. This provides important support for redevelopment proposals across London and beyond, where similar policy language is engaged.
- Carbon Optioneering as a Lawful Methodology. Where a planning authority has published detailed guidance on policy application and an applicant has followed that methodology transparently and subjected it to independent review, the Court will regard it as a legitimate approach within the policy framework.
- The Statutory Materiality Duty. Applying Bradbury, the Court confirmed that "the outcome" under section 31(2A) means the planning decision, not the decision together with the procedural guarantees surrounding it. Courts will not readily adopt an expanded conception of outcome to preserve a remedy where the substantive decision would inevitably have been the same.
Conclusion
The dismissal of all three grounds of judicial review is a comprehensive vindication of the planning process for the London Wall West development, with the Claimant ordered to pay the Defendant's costs. The decision provides important guidance for local authority developers navigating the self-grant regime, for planning officers applying sustainability policies addressing demolition avoidance, and for practitioners advising on the consequences of procedural breaches in EIA cases.
This article has been prepared by Mishcon de Reya in our capacity as solicitors for the Interested Party. For further information, please contact a member of our planning team.