Application for planning permission on reclamation and landfill site – Council granting permission – Whether council failing to take into account material considerations – Application for council’s decision to be quashed dismissed
The Welbeck Reclamation & Landfill site was a large area in Wakefield, covering approximately 3 sq km of land in the valley of the River Calder. The site had been devastated and left derelict by many years of mineral extraction and associated industrial activity. Adjacent to, and on the north eastern side of the site was the Normanton Park Estate, the estate, which included listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments at Newland Hall. The estate was owned by the applicant. Since the early 1980s, the relevant local authorities sought to reclaim and restore the site to agriculture, woodland and open space uses. In early 1985 two alternative reclamation and landfill schemes were considered, namely the “full scheme”, which required the diversion of the River Calder and the “limited scheme”, which did not. In July 1985 the council’s predecessor granted deemed planning permission to carry out either of the schemes. Both of the schemes involved the compulsory purchase of part of the estate. Development under the permission commenced in October 1985 and the council made four compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) of which two related to the estate. The applicant lodged statutory objections to the CPOs and applied to the council for planning permission to develop part of the estate for waste disposal purposes. The council refused the planning permission and the applicant appealed. The inspector heard the appeal and the objection to the CPOs and concluded that the CPOs, in so far as they concerned the estate, should not be confirmed and that the planning appeal should be dismissed. However, the decision was never issued although it was made available to the parties. Subsequently, the council withdrew the CPOs which related to the estate. The second respondent applied for planning permission for the reclamation of the site by land filling with colliery and controlled waste. The council granted planning permission. The applicant sought relief by way of judicial review of the grant of planning permission to the second respondent, contending that the council had failed to consider, as material considerations: (a) the strongly expressed views of the inspector; and (b) whether all the benefits of the second respondent’s application could be achieved by a suitable amendment to the limited scheme.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. The inspector’s report had been almost entirely concerned with the likely impact of the landform proposals of the full scheme and the second respondent’s proposals were different from the landform which was proposed in the full scheme. The council had had the benefit of a report prepared by independent landscape consultants which had advised that the second respondent’s proposal should not adversely affect the nearby listed buildings and scheduled monuments and was of acceptable landform and extent. Therefore it could be concluded there was no real possibility that the council would have reached a different conclusion even if it had failed to take into account the inspector’s conclusions.
2. The council had not been required to take into account a suitably modified limited scheme since there was no prospect of the limited scheme being taken to completion because the applicant’s land was no longer available and there was no viable version of the limited scheme which could be carried out without recourse to that land.
Nigel Macleod QC and Timothy Mould (instructed by Eversheds, of Leeds) appeared for the applicant; Stephen Sauvain QC (instructed by the solicitor to Wakefield Borough Council) appeared for the first respondents; John Barrett (instructed by Hammond Suddards, of Leeds) appeared for the second respondent.
