Under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, a local planning authority (“LPA”) is able to delegate the making of development control decisions to a committee, a sub-committee or an officer. In law, the decision – once made – then becomes that of the LPA. But the extent to which delegation has taken place must still be clear at all times, and particularly when a decision is under challenge.
In R (on the application of Gawthorpe) v Sedgemoor District Council [2012] EWHC 2020 (Admin) the claimant sought to quash the grant of planning permission for a small residential development on land forming part of an industrial estate. One of the grounds of challenge was that the LPA had failed to have regard to the fact that the land was likely to be contaminated, and that it acted unreasonably in failing to impose a condition requiring a site investigation and the carrying out of remediation works before the commencement of development.
The LPA’s planning committee had adopted the recommendation in the committee report, and had then resolved “to grant delegated planning permission subject to the prior completion of a supplementary legal agreement” dealing with traffic management arrangements on the site. The legal agreement was subsequently put in place, and the planning officer later signed the notice of grant of planning permission and issued it. In his evidence to the court, the planning officer stated that the planning committee had delegated the determination of the planning application to him, and that he had subsequently determined it.
The preliminary question for the court was whether the focus of the challenge should be on the minds of the members of the planning committee, or on the mind of the planning officer. The judge described the terms of the resolution as “plainly unsatisfactory” in that its effect was a matter on which there could be considerable disagreement. He concluded, however, on balance that the decision whether or not to grant planning permission had been delegated to the planning officer, albeit with a clear indication that the planning committee thought that planning permission should be granted if an acceptable agreement was concluded.
John Martin
PP 2013/59 The wording of a resolution by a local authority planning committee that planning permission should or should not be granted must make it clear whether the decision is an operative one or whether it is to be the subject of any degree of delegation
Under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, a local planning authority (“LPA”) is able to delegate the making of development control decisions to a committee, a sub-committee or an officer. In law, the decision – once made – then becomes that of the LPA. But the extent to which delegation has taken place must still be clear at all times, and particularly when a decision is under challenge. In R (on the application of Gawthorpe) v Sedgemoor District Council [2012] EWHC 2020 (Admin) the claimant sought to quash the grant of planning permission for a small residential development on land forming part of an industrial estate. One of the grounds of challenge was that the LPA had failed to have regard to the fact that the land was likely to be contaminated, and that it acted unreasonably in failing to impose a condition requiring a site investigation and the carrying out of remediation works before the commencement of development. The LPA’s planning committee had adopted the recommendation in the committee report, and had then resolved “to grant delegated planning permission subject to the prior completion of a supplementary legal agreement” dealing with traffic management arrangements on the site. The legal agreement was subsequently put in place, and the planning officer later signed the notice of grant of planning permission and issued it. In his evidence to the court, the planning officer stated that the planning committee had delegated the determination of the planning application to him, and that he had subsequently determined it. The preliminary question for the court was whether the focus of the challenge should be on the minds of the members of the planning committee, or on the mind of the planning officer. The judge described the terms of the resolution as “plainly unsatisfactory” in that its effect was a matter on which there could be considerable disagreement. He concluded, however, on balance that the decision whether or not to grant planning permission had been delegated to the planning officer, albeit with a clear indication that the planning committee thought that planning permission should be granted if an acceptable agreement was concluded. John Martin
