Hall and grounds in grave state of disrepair – Developer proposing to fund refurbishment of hall by development of new dwellings in grounds – Planning permission granted for eight new dwellings – Whether council failed to make assessment of financial necessity of scale of development – High Court refusing application for judicial review – Appeal dismissed
By 1994 Downe Hall, a listed building inside Bridport Conservation Area, had fallen into a grave state of disrepair and the park and gardens, which were in the Dorset County Volume of the register, had been long neglected. Prompt action was required if the hall was not to become derelict. F approached the council with a proposal for refurbishment by turning the hall into five dwelling units, with an associated development of nine new dwellings in the ground to generate the financial resources needed. F also proposed to convey 10 acres of parkland to the council for public use. F submitted detailed financial information relating to the proposal. On April 1 1996 the council granted planning permission for the erection of eight houses and conversion of the hall to five units.
Immediately prior to the grant of permission the council had entered into an agreement under section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 with the owner of the hall and F, whereby, first, the development would not be commenced until 10 acres of the grounds had been conveyed to the council, second, £23,000 had been paid to the council for the purpose of maintaining the land conveyed to them and, third, that the remainder of the grounds would be maintained in perpetuity. The applicants, local residents, applied for judicial review of the grant of planning permission. The High Court rejected the challenge.
The applicants appealed contending that the council had failed to take into account a material consideration, namely that they had granted permission without making any assessment of the financial necessity for the extent of the development. In the alternative it was contended that the council had come to a decision which no reasonable council could have come to on the information available, in that they had granted permission without making a proper assessment of the financial necessity for the development and its extent.
Held The appeal was dismissed by a majority.
1. It was likely that the council considered that F would not proceed without permission for eight houses. The council were entitled to base their decision on that conclusion and therefore had not failed to take into account the financial necessity of the scale of the development as a material consideration.
2. The disadvantages of the grant of permission had been placed before the council by persons qualified to express informed opinions and they were aware that the grant of permission was against policy. However, the grant of permission coupled with the section 106 agreement secured the restoration of the hall and the maintenance of the grounds at no public expense, and also secured the grant of 10 acres of the park to the public. Those were substantial gains and accordingly the council had been entitled to conclude that it was appropriate to grant permission.
William Hicks QC and Richard Harwood (instructed by Milne & Lyall, of Bridport) appeared for the applicants; James Findlay (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London agents for the solicitor to West Dorset District Council) appeared for the respondents; Robert Beecroft (instructed by Battens, of Yeovil) appeared for developer, F, an interested party.
