R (ELY & Anor) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2026] EWHC 927 (Admin) was an application for permission to appeal under s.289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and for judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State, through his planning inspector, regarding an enforcement notice relating to Talmud Torah school [1].

Background

Talmud Torah is a primary school for Charedi boys which serves the large community in Stamford Hill. For Charedis, sending their children to a Charedi school is a religious obligation [5]. It was not disputed that there was a significant shortage of school places in the area for Charedi children [6]; however, the site had been changed to use as a school without planning permission, and Hackney LBC had refused an application for retrospective planning permission [7]. An appeal to the Secretary of State via a Planning Inspector had failed, and one reason for its failure had been noise from the school and the consequent disturbance to local residents [7].

The application was made on four grounds:

1. that the Inspector acted contrary to section 6(1) Human Rights Act 1998 because the decision disproportionately infringed the Claimants’ Convention rights, particularly under Articles 8 (private and family life), 9 (religion), 14 (discrimination) and Article 2 Protocol 1 (education);
2. that the Inspector had erred in law by excluding from her assessment the Council’s duty under the Education Act 1996 to provide sufficient school places and the question of whether or not Policies LP24 and LP8 of the Local Plan were out-of-date.
3. that in considering the children’s Convention rights, the Inspector had failed to have regard to an obviously material consideration and to give adequate reasons in relation to her conclusions, and/or that her conclusions were irrational.
4. that she had erred in law by departing from the expert evidence on noise and/or national planning policy on noise without having cogent and compelling reasons for doing so, and/or by failing to give adequate reasons in relation to her conclusions on noise, and/or by failing to act fairly in her approach to the Appellant’s expert evidence and/or by reaching an irrational conclusion [3].

The judgment

Lieven J dismissed the application.

As to Grounds 1 and 3, the contention had been that, because the alleged discrimination was on the basis of religion, the test was manifestly without reasonable foundation. However, for the Inspector to have allowed the appeal would have involved a significant interference with the residents’ Article 8 rights. The balance between the rights of the Claimants and of the local residents was a matter for the Inspector, and “no argument about the approach to proportionality by the Court could lead to a different conclusion”. Given the Inspector’s findings, there was plainly a reasonable foundation for her conclusion and Grounds 1 and 3 therefore failed [38].

As to Ground 2, “it is not for the Inspector to make legal rulings on whether the Local Education Authority … is in breach of a duty to provide sufficient school places. That would be a matter for the Administrative Court of the High Court in a judicial review.” The duty was laid on the LEA, not on the Planning Authority [42], and because it was a target duty, any finding of a breach would be hard to establish [43]. The Inspector had, in fact, taken account of the unmet need for school places and had concluded that the development was acceptable in principle – but having done so, she had had to weigh that against the harm to local residents [44].

As to Ground 4, she had been fully entitled to place great weight on the evidence of the residents and to conclude that, in the light of their evidence, the impact of the increased noise would be intolerable [49].

Permission refused [51].

[With thanks to David Lamming for drawing the case to our attention.]