A deficiency in a planning officer’s report to a planning committee that results in the latter’s failure to take account of a material consideration in determining an application does not necessarily mean that the court will automatically quash the decision.
This point was reinforced in R (on the application of Hampson) v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council [2005] EWHC 1656 (Admin); [2005] PLSCS 150, which also considered the question of enabling development and when development may be considered as such.
In Hampson, planning permission had been granted for a new sports stadium, sports pitch and associated car parking. Various other interrelated planning permissions were granted for office buildings, residential units and a retail warehouse. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision on the ground, inter alia, that the council had failed to consider the issue of the loss of recreational open space and sports pitches. He argued that the relevant development plan policies had been inadequately dealt with in the officer’s reports to the planning committee.
The court held that as a result of this deficiency, the council had not considered the full extent of the relevant policies in reaching their decision, which constituted a failure to take into account a material consideration. However, since the issue of the loss of the recreational open space had been before the committee when it made its determination, members had had adequate material to assess those matters in the context of the proposals. In the circumstances, the court refused to quash the planning permission.
The development would be financially viable only if the related planning applications were granted. The claimant had contended that those applications were not enabling development because they were not in sufficiently close proximity to the sports facilities for the entire scheme to be regarded as a package. The court held that the council had been entitled to treat the applications as a composite development because there was a close functional relationship between all the elements of the scheme. In any event, the developments were considered to be acceptable in their own right.
This decision indicates that the courts are taking a fairly broad approach as to what constitutes enabling development in any particular case. It is not necessary for the various parts of a composite scheme to be in close physical proximity to the development that is the subject of the substantive planning permission, provided that some other link between them can be established.
Gill Castorina is an associate at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (Europe) LLP
Start your free trial today
Your trusted daily source of commercial real estate news and analysis. Register now for unlimited digital access throughout April.
Including:
- Breaking news, interviews and market updates
- Expert legal commentary, market trends and case law
- In-depth reports and expert analysis
A deficiency in a planning officer’s report to a planning committee that results in the latter’s failure to take account of a material consideration in determining an application does not necessarily mean that the court will automatically quash the decision.
This point was reinforced in R (on the application of Hampson) v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council [2005] EWHC 1656 (Admin); [2005] PLSCS 150, which also considered the question of enabling development and when development may be considered as such.
In Hampson, planning permission had been granted for a new sports stadium, sports pitch and associated car parking. Various other interrelated planning permissions were granted for office buildings, residential units and a retail warehouse. The claimant sought judicial review of the decision on the ground, inter alia, that the council had failed to consider the issue of the loss of recreational open space and sports pitches. He argued that the relevant development plan policies had been inadequately dealt with in the officer’s reports to the planning committee.
The court held that as a result of this deficiency, the council had not considered the full extent of the relevant policies in reaching their decision, which constituted a failure to take into account a material consideration. However, since the issue of the loss of the recreational open space had been before the committee when it made its determination, members had had adequate material to assess those matters in the context of the proposals. In the circumstances, the court refused to quash the planning permission.
The development would be financially viable only if the related planning applications were granted. The claimant had contended that those applications were not enabling development because they were not in sufficiently close proximity to the sports facilities for the entire scheme to be regarded as a package. The court held that the council had been entitled to treat the applications as a composite development because there was a close functional relationship between all the elements of the scheme. In any event, the developments were considered to be acceptable in their own right.
This decision indicates that the courts are taking a fairly broad approach as to what constitutes enabling development in any particular case. It is not necessary for the various parts of a composite scheme to be in close physical proximity to the development that is the subject of the substantive planning permission, provided that some other link between them can be established.
Gill Castorina is an associate at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker (Europe) LLP
