The judicial discretion not to quash a planning permission despite a material error in the decision-making process will come under scrutiny in an appeal over the redevelopment of former Defence Evaluation and Research Agency land in the Surrey green belt.
In March, Patterson J declined to quash the permission granted by Runnymede borough council last August to develop the DERA site north of the M3 at Chertsey, on the outskirts of London, despite finding that a planning officer’s report did not adequately estimate the five-year housing supply that the development would bring.
She ruled that this was not a reason to stop the development. But today Smech Properties, which owns the nearby Longcross Estate, was granted permission to appeal on one ground – that she erred in the exercise of her discretion.
It says that the judge found that the officer’s report contained a material misdirection, which went to the matters being relied on as very special circumstances supporting the proposal, and that this should normally be sufficient for a planning permission to be quashed by the court.
Lewison LJ said that he had been convinced that there was an “arguable point” in relation to solely this ground, and gave the go-ahead for a full appeal.
The site is to be developed with 200 homes, almost 860,000 sq ft of employment land, 390,000 sq ft of data centre development and more than 64,000 sq ft of retail, restaurant, health and leisure, childcare and other uses.
Smech argued at the High Court that the development would cause unacceptable harm to the green belt, was granted prematurely ahead of a review of the green belt boundary, and would create a precedent for future development of the rest of the DERA site south of the M3.
In her decision, Patterson said that even if the council had been correctly informed about the number of homes the development would yield over a five-year period, the fact that there was a greater shortfall against the five year housing supply and, overall, a greater housing need than was thought at the time of reporting the application to committee made it “inevitable” that the same decision would have been reached.
Site owner CGNU Life Assurance and fellow applicant for planning permission Crest Nicholson Operations are defending the permission, in addition to Runnmede borough council.
The Queen on the application of Smech Properties Ltd v Runnymede borough council Court of Appeal (Lewison LJ)
