Where an application has been made for full planning permission, applicants often put pressure on the local planning authority (LPA) to accelerate the grant of the planning permission by leaving issues to be dealt with subsequently by means of condition. Although this may sometimes be acceptable, for instance where the nature of the issue is peripheral and its extent is identified, an LPA should always exercise considerable caution if it wants to avoid a challenge.
In R (on the application of Technoprint Ltd) v Leeds City Council [2010] EWHC 581 (Admin); [2010] PLSCS 95, the claimants sought judicial review of a decision to grant planning permission for the demolition of a car repair shop and the construction of 12 flats in its place. A planning officer under delegated authority had made the decision and the majority of the grounds of challenge arose out of that fact: see PP 2009/129 in particular. However, the claimants also contended that the decision itself was irrational and unreasonable on Wednesbury grounds.
The LPA had identified land contamination as a main issue. Its technical officer pointed out to the planning officer that the applicant had not provided any information in that respect, despite the fact that the end use was residential. She recommended a phase I (desk study) report in support of the application, commenting that a phase II (site investigation) report and remediation statement might be necessary once that had been considered. She advised against the grant of planning permission without the information.
The applicant furnished a phase I report. The technical officer then recommended a phase II report and, if necessary, a remediation statement in support of the application. None was provided. Instead, planning permission was granted subject to a condition requiring a phase II report.
The court quashed the decision to grant planning permission, holding that it was unreasonable for the LPA to do so when so many issues relating to potential land contamination were unresolved. The judge said, “I appreciate that solutions can usually be found to overcome problems associated with land contamination. It does seem to me, however, that a reasonable local planning authority would have demanded much more information from the [applicant] before deciding to grant permission rather than grant permission subject to conditions when the extent of any potential problem was simply unknown.”
John Martin is a freelance writer
