Application for planning permission – Local residents objecting – Council granting permission – Whether objector’s concerns over nature and character of potential residents were material considerations – Whether council would have granted permission if considerations taken into account – Application for judicial review of council’s decision refused
The second and third respondents, the St Matthew Society and Peddars Way Housing Association, applied for planning permission for the change of use of the East Norwich Inn, 47 Old Road, Acle, from an hotel to an eight-bed hostel and eight-bed group home with staff flats and eight one-bedroom flats. The application attracted a substantial number of objections from local residents. However, the council granted planning permission subject to conditions. The applicants, three of the objecting local residents, applied for judicial review to quash the council’s decision. The applicants contended that the officer’s report had erroneously concluded, first, that the public concern relating to the nature and character of the potential residents of the proposed development was not a land use planning issue and, second, that the concerns over the safety of school children leading to increased journeys to and from the nearby primary school by parents were not material planning considerations. It was submitted that both matters were material considerations, which the council was bound to take into account under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and therefore, since the council was to be taken to have based their decision upon the officer’s advice, the decision was unlawful. The council conceded that they had committed an error in treating as immaterial the question of increased car trips resulting from parents concerns about the safety of their children.
Held: The application was dismissed.
1. The officer’s report had erroneously advised the council to disregard the concerns of objectors about the nature and character of the potential residents of the proposed development because the matters about which local residents were concerned, namely anti-social behaviour by the potential residents, were capable of constituting material planning considerations since any such behaviour would be attributable to the nature of the proposed use of the land: see West Midlands Probation Committee v Secretary of State for the Environment [1996] PLSCS 293.
2. However, although that advice had been erroneous the report had also advised that if such concerns were taken into account they could not count against the proposal. Therefore, since there was no reason for concluding that the council had failed to consider the concerns of local residents and whether that would affect their decision, the misdirection had not resulted in an invalid decision.
3. The question of increased car trips was capable of being a material consideration for the purposes of section 70(2) of the 1990 Act. However, the council’s failure to regard it as such did not render the decision invalid because it was impossible to conclude that there was a real possibility that, if the issue had been considered, it would have made a difference to the council’s decision: see Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1990) 61 P&CR 343.
Barry Payton and Philip Norman (instructed by Hansell Stevenson, of Norwich) appeared for the applicants; Robin Barratt QC (instructed by Steele & Co, of Norwich) appeared for Broadlands District Council; Nathalie Lieven (instructed by Greenland Houchen, of Norwich) appeared for the second and third respondents.
