Permission to extract coal and clay by open cast method — Permission also granted for diversion of river and extraction of minerals — Company owning land seeking judicial review — Local planning authority making amendments without fresh applications for planning permission — Whether totally different scheme resulting — Whether decisions lawful — Applications refused
The applicants, Warmfield Co Ltd, sought judicial review of decisions of the first respondent, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, which were the planning authority for land in the applicant’s ownership at Welbeck, Wakefield, West Yorkshire, on the eastern side of the River Calder. The first decision concerned the grant to the second respondent, British Coal, for extraction of coal and clay by open cast methods (with ancillary operations) on land in the vicinity of the River Calder, Welbeck. The second decision was one whereby the council approved a diversion of the River Calder pursuant to a conditional planning permission and the third concerned conditional planning permission for the extraction of minerals from a site near the river.
The company owned the land since 1926 and a major scheme for the disposal of waste on land at Welbeck, as well as a limited scheme under which the river would not be diverted, included a substantial part of the company’s land. In 1985 the county council resolved to seek planning permission under regulation 4(5) of the Town and Country Planning Regulations 1976 and granted themself deemed conditional planning permission for both schemes, which envisaged extraction of minerals from the site by British Coal. The company felt that the decisions prejudiced its own scheme for waste disposal in the area. The waste management was delegated to a body by five district councils, which carried out waste disposal functions also on behalf of Wakefield MDC.
Held The applications were refused.
1. It was open to a local authority to contract with others in order to assist them carrying out the objective of the permission.
2. It was the accepted practice that a local planning authority could agree, in certain circumstances, to amend an application. The court concluded that the amendments were not so substantial as to amount to a different planning permission; there was no enlargement of the application boundary and the company did have an opportunity to comment on new proposals.
3. It was possible to have within a full planning permission matters reserved by condition for future approval. It was for the local planning authority to judge whether an application for approval under a condition fell within the ambit of an already granted permission and the courts would only interfere if a judgment had been exceeded as manifestly unreasonably. A distinction had to be drawn between a permitted use of land and the manner of implementation of the use.
4. There was no hint of bias. It was not enough to show that there was a pre-existing policy that open-cast mining should take place, nor to point to commercial arrangements which were already in place on whatever test of bias was propounded: see R v Sevenoaks DC, ex parte Terry [1985] 3 All ER 226.
Robert Gray QC and Paul Stinchcombe (instructed by Mace & Jones, of Manchester) appeared for applicant company; Gerard Ryan QC and Stepehn Sauvain (instructed by the solicitor to Wakefield Metropolitan District Council) appeared for the first respondents; Timothy Corner (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson, of Doncaster) appeared for the second respondent, British Coal Corporation.