Planning application — Procedure — Application for construction of school on parkland — Whether council taking all relevant considerations into account — Whether planning permission in accordance with terms of earlier resolution — Whether compliance with Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 — Claim dismissed
The claimant lived close to a park in Bermondsey. There were plans to use the park as the site of a city academy. The defendant council, as the local planning authority, issued a screening opinion stating that the development would not require an environmental impact assessment (EIA). In January 2002, after considering a detailed report, the council resolved to grant outline planning permission on the basis that the educational need for the academy justified a departure from the usual planning policy of preserving open spaces, as set out in the unitary development plan (UDP). The mayor of London directed that the council should refuse permission. However, he reversed his decision after receiving details of a revised scheme together with assurances relating to the provision and upkeep of alternative open spaces. Outline planning permission was finally granted in November 2002. Following delays in the development process, a further planning application was made for a temporary educational facility in the park, for which the council were prepared to grant temporary permission.
The claimant brought judicial review proceedings challenging both the grant of outline permission and the resolution to grant the temporary permission. She contended that the council had: (i) failed to consider relevant matters, including the UDP policy, a possible alternative site for the school, and matters arising between the resolution to grant permission in January 2002 and the actual grant in November; (ii) issued a planning permission that differed in material respects from that contemplated in the January resolution; and (iii) failed to comply with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 by neglecting to require an EIA.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
1. The report upon which the resolution of January 2002 was based had set out the national and regional policies on open space with admirable clarity. It was also clear that the council had carefully considered, and rejected, the alternative site. The council had been apprised of all relevant considerations and had borne them in mind when reaching their finely balanced decision. In relation to matters arising after January 2002, the applicable principle was that if some new matter had arisen of which the delegated officer had become aware, and which could reasonably be regarded as a material consideration, the matter should have been referred back to the council. The formal planning permission should have been issued only when the officer had been satisfied that the council had had regard to all material considerations: R (on the application of Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1370; [2002] PLR 66 considered. In the instant case, it was clear that, by the time the outline planning permission had been issued in November 2002, the council had considered all material considerations, including matters, such as the steps taken to meet the mayor’s concerns, that had arisen since the January resolution.
2. The outline planning permission was entirely in accordance with the terms of the January resolution. Since it was an outline permission only, it was unaffected by resolutions made after January relating to the steps taken to satisfy the mayor.
3. The proposed development was an urban development project within the meaning of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Regulations, and the council had therefore been obliged to consider whether it was EIA development. The council had had before them more than sufficient information to justify their conclusion that no EIA was necessary for the proposed city academy. The subsequent addition of the application for temporary permission did not alter that situation; it could not be said that both applications together should be regarded as EIA development.
William Upton (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appeared for the claimant; Eian Caws (instructed by the solicitor to Southwark London Borough Council) appeared for the defendants.
Sally Dobson, barrister
