In R (on the application of Grand Central Sound Studios Ltd) v Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster and Marlborough House Ltd [2016] EWHC 2617 (Admin) a London recording studio has failed in an attempt to overturn a planning approval for a neighbouring development which it claimed would cause noise and vibration disturbance.
The planning application involved the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment behind retained street facades to comprise a new building at basement, ground and first to seventh floor levels. The ultimate use was for retail/restaurant use on the ground floor but mostly residential. The work was anticipated to take 28 months. The key concern of the recording studios was that of ground-borne vibration. That could make it impossible for their business to function at all as ground-borne vibration would bypass sound insulation in the studios thereby rendering it difficult to make voice recordings which are very sensitive to any interference and background noise.
The application went to Committee on 8 March 2016, where a recommendation to grant subject to a s106 agreement was proposed. The s106 was to include a site environmental management plan (SEMP). Permission was subsequently granted. This was significant due to the fact that on 18 March 2015 councillor Robert Davis announced a change in policy to resist conversions from office to residential use.
The judicial review application failed on the four grounds of challenge, these being: (1) the proposed conversion of offices to residential was not acceptable in policy terms; (2) The council did not have sufficient evidence as to whether noise mitigation measures would be effective; (3) The council failed to have regard to the impact of the noise and vibration under policy COM8; and (4) The council unreasonably failed to impose a condition protecting the premises from vibration.
The court held that whether there were strong economic reasons for not allowing the permission to be granted was a matter for the planning judgment of the committee weighing as it had to do the economic case against the need for new homes. It determined, as it was entitled to do, that there was not an economic case for the retention of offices on the application site. The members were aware of the prospective change to policy and the undersupply of office space. The first ground therefore failed. The court also dismissed the second ground as it was for the council to reach its own conclusions as to whether such measures were in place. The covenant for the SEMP and code of construction practice in the section 106 agreement meant that the council had acted appropriately ins tricking the balance that it did in granting permission. The third ground similarly failed on the basis that the council did appropriately consider policy. The fourth ground was dismissed and the court reiterated that the courts should not impose too onerous a standard on committee reports.
This case makes it clear that the courts will not interfere with the decision-making process. There is a fine balance between upholding the proper process and being too demanding on council reports and the decision-makers.
Martha Grekos is a partner and head of planning at Howard Kennedy LLP
