As we have seen earlier (PP 2010/24), the terms of the planning application dictate the nature of the development permitted. A local planning authority has no power to grant planning permission for a development that is substantially different from that applied for. This principle was at the heart of what can only be described as a “root and branch” challenge to the grant of planning permission in R (on the application of Usk Valley Conservation Group) v Brecon Beacons National Park Authority [2010] EWHC 71 (Admin); [2010] PLSCS 61.
In that case, the applicant had applied for planning permission to relocate an existing camping facility outside of a flood zone. The development was described as a change of use, involving no operational development. Although the application did not mention caravans and none was shown on the supporting plans, several caravans and tents were stationed on the site. The authority granted planning permission, subject to a condition that no more than 50 tents and 50 caravans were to be positioned on the site. It subsequently received complaints from local residents concerning breaches of this condition, which in turn raised issues about the validity of the planning permission. Was the scale of the development greater than the application had envisaged?
The court held that the planning permission was invalid and should be quashed. The application had not mentioned caravans and should not have been interpreted as including them. Planning permission for the stationing of caravans could not lawfully be granted pursuant to the application. The permission was for a different development from the one applied for.
The judge stated that where an ambiguity in the application went to the heart of what was proposed, a planning permission that reflected the ambiguity would in turn be legally uncertain in a way that could not be remedied by examining the application. It was not for conditions to define the scale of the application in a way that went to the heart or nature of the application, as opposed to controlling the permitted development.
Finally, the judge warned that a public authority had a duty to make reasonable enquiries to obtain the necessary factual information to provide a rational basis for a decision on the planning application before it. In the instant case, the level of enquiries had been perfunctory.
John Martin is a freelance writer
