Background
Three property development companies purchased land at Thelwall Heyes near Warrington in 2024. The site was allocated in the Local Plan for 300+ residential homes. In March 2025, they applied to Warrington Borough Council for planning permission to build 330 dwellings. By June 2025, their application was progressing toward approval and they expected consideration at a Council meeting on 15 January 2026.
Unknown to the claimants’ satisfaction, the Department for Transport had begun discussions about using the site for a Liverpool-Manchester rail link (Northern Powerhouse Rail). Negotiations centered on an option agreement that would allow a 12-month delay, give the Secretary of State a purchase option at £60.48 million, and preserve his ability to issue a safeguarding direction with expedited compensation.
On 13 January 2026—two days before the planned Planning Committee decision—the Secretary of State issued an Article 31 direction under the Town and County Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (the “2015 Order”), preventing the local authority from granting planning permission for six months. No reasons were provided. The Council’s Planning Committee nonetheless voted unanimously to grant permission subject to a s.106 agreement, but could not issue the permission while the direction remained in force.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Chamberlain granted permission to apply for judicial review on all three grounds of challenge. This is a permission-stage decision, finding the grounds arguable with a realistic prospect of success, rather than a final ruling on merit. The court emphasized that it is “at least unusual—and possibly unprecedented” to invoke Article 31 to delay planning permission without triggering the statutory blight regime in circumstances where land is “potentially required” for public development.
On the improper purpose ground, the court found it arguable that an Article 31 direction whose true purpose is to safeguard land for relevant public purposes (here, infrastructure) but which is expressed so as not to trigger statutory blight provisions is unlawful. The ministerial submissions disclosed to the court indicated that a safeguarding direction was an option the Secretary of State considered; the use of Article 31 instead appeared to secure the benefits of safeguarding while circumventing the compensation scheme. The court declined to shut out the argument that blight may be triggered by the actual purpose of the direction, not merely its stated terms.
The irrationality ground was found arguable because the direction may have been given without adequate regard to its impact on the claimants’ investment and expectations. The ECHR Article 1, Protocol 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions) ground was found arguable, though more marginally—while the direction did not deprive the claimants of property outright, a six-month delay on planning permission may, viewed substantively rather than formally, constitute an interference with their use of property.
Key Takeaways
- An Article 31 direction issued for the purpose of safeguarding land for public development but crafted to avoid triggering statutory blight protections may be unlawful.
- Statutory blight provisions exist to ensure fair compensation when the government safeguards land for public purposes; they cannot be circumvented by deploying alternative planning powers.
- The Secretary of State must have regard to impacts on affected landowners when restricting planning permissions, and silence as to the true reason for a direction does not shield it from legal scrutiny if the purpose is revealed in supporting materials.
- A six-month delay on a planning permission, when issued without warning and after the applicant has invested in negotiations, may be challenged as an interference with property rights under European human rights law.
Why It Matters
This judgment exposes a potential gap in the law: a government seeking to control land for infrastructure can use emergency planning powers to freeze a site indefinitely without offering statutory compensation or following formal safeguarding procedures. If the claimants succeed at trial, the Secretary of State will be forced to choose: either issue a formal safeguarding direction (triggering blight and compensation) or allow the planning permission to proceed. This is significant for major projects like rail links, where protracted uncertainty can destroy commercial viability and where landowners deserve predictable legal remedies.
Notably, between the permission hearing (17 June 2026) and the judgment (16 July 2026), the Secretary of State issued a second Article 31 direction dated 8 July 2026, extending the prohibition to 30 October 2026 and reserving the right to extend further “as needed.” The court noted this showed the challenge was far from academic and urged expedited procedural directions for the substantive hearing. The pattern suggests the government intends to maintain the freeze for as long as the rail project remains under consideration, underscoring the stakes for the claimants and the need for legal clarity.