Respondents granting conditional planning consent for development of site A – Change of circumstances – Site B becoming available – Whether respondents erred in refusing to reconsider their decision – Application allowed
The respondent council identified two possible sites for the development of a multiplex cinema at Bury St Edmunds: the Parkway site and the Cattle Market site. The Cattle Market site was not pursued as the preferred site owing to the council’s concern that the development would be piecemeal. This was because part of the site was leased to the operators of a livestock market. On 5 November 1998 the council granted planning consent for the development of the Parkway site. On 6 November the operators of the livestock market surrendered their lease to the council. This made the whole of the Cattle Market site at the council’s disposal and thus available for development. The council however refused to reconsider its decision. The applicant sought to quash the council’s decision on the grounds that the respondents ought properly to have reconsidered, in the light of the change of circumstances regarding the Cattle Market site. It was not contested that the respondents were entitled to reconsider the merits of a planning application at any time before the issue of the planning consent itself. Nor was it contested that the availability of alternative sites was a relevant consideration to the determination of the planning application for the Parkway site. However, the respondents submitted that their reluctance to sanction piecemeal development was the overriding consideration for their preference of the Parkway site on 5 November 1998, thus, the surrender of the lease was immaterial.
Held: The application was allowed.
The respondents’ officers had plainly identified other reasons for rejecting the Cattle Market site, other than simply an objection to piecemeal development. In view of the change of circumstances and in light of the sequential approach of PPG 6, the respondents should have reconsidered their decision.
Douglas Edwards (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appeared for the applicant; Neil King (instructed by the solicitor to St Edmundsbury Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
