Permission for first stage of plan to convert residential sector of disused airfield into small community centre – Challenge by nearby parish council anxious about increased traffic – Whether applicant council failed to apply promptly for judicial review – Whether planning authority had sanctioned “peacemeal approach” discouraged by local plan – Application refused
The appeal site, located about three miles from the parish of Barrington, was a disused military airfield which included a substantial residential quarter for married personnel. Following a study in which the parish council failed to participate, the district council published a final planning brief proposing, inter alia, the transformation of the residential quarters to provide civilian residential units. A draft development plan published in November 1995, pointing to the location of the site in an area of outstanding natural beauty, announced strong opposition to any “piecemeal approach” to development.
In August 1996 the parish council were notified of the sale of the site to Country & Metropolitan Group plc (C&M), who would shortly seek planning permission for the refurbishment of 212 properties and start preparatory work, not requiring such permission, within two months. The parish council also learned that the refurbished properties would be sold to the second respondents, Bradford Property Trust, for renting on the open market. Planning permission for the refurbishment work was granted to C&M on November 7 1996. Having learned of that permission on December 10 1996 the parish council lodged an application dated December 31 1996 for leave to seek judicial review claiming that the district council had in effect approved the piecemeal approach discouraged by the development plan. The respondents resisted on grounds, inter alia, of undue delay and contended that the parish council’s grounds did not show sufficient interest in the decision challenged.
Held Leave was refused.
1. Despite the distance from the appeal site, the parish council had a “sufficient interest” for the purpose of RSC Ord 53 r 3(7) as they were bona fide concerned about increased traffic through the parish following redevelopment: see R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 570
2. Since planning permissions were vital to commercial transactions, the need for promptness when seeking judicial review applied even before expiry of the statutory three-month time-limit. The applicants’ conduct had to be judged as from the date of the decision complained of, their state of knowledge being relevant only to the court’s discretion to extend that limit: see R v Exeter City Council, ex parte JL Thomas & Co (1992) 1 QB 471; R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Presvac (1991) 4 Admin LR 121. In the light of what they knew in August 1996 the delay on the part of the parish council (who could have checked the planning register) was reprehensible and itself a ground for refusing leave.
3. There was in any event no real prospect of success on the merits since the relatively minor works proposed in the refurbishment application were clearly the first step in executing the overall plan set out in the planning brief, and therefore there was no question of a piecemeal approach.
Keith Lindblom QC and Euan Burrows (instructed by Sewell Mullings & Logie, of Cirencester) appeared for the applicant, Barrington Parish Council; David Holgate QC (instructed by the solicitor to Cotswold District Council) appeared for the first respondents; Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC (instructed by Hammond Suddards, of Leeds) appeared for the second respondents, Bradford Property Trust plc.
