Town and country planning – Planning permission – Judicial review – Defendant local authority granting planning permission for construction of multi-purpose development on former school site – Claimant parish council seeking judicial review – Whether defendants making errors of fact in relation to playing fields forming part of site – Whether defendants failing to have regard to retention of existing site for educational purposes – Application dismissed
In December 2010, the defendant local planning authority granted planning for a mixed use development, including 198 dwellings, to be constructed on the site of a former convent school in Buckinghamshire which had closed in 2006. A number of objections were raised to the proposal. The claimant parish council and others within the local community had expressed an aspiration to re-locate the village school to the site, and more specifically have put forward proposals at various stages for a mixed use of the site including both housing and the retention of the existing buildings as a school, and for the sale of the existing village school for development. Accordingly, the claimant sought judicial review of the defendants’ decision,
They contended that there had been errors of fact relating to the loss of the playing fields that formed part of the site. A range of evidence had been put before the relevant committee of the defendants and it was alleged that the committee had been mislead as to the availability of evidence. Further, the defendants had failed to have regard to the retention of the existing use of the site for educational purposes. Therefore they had not complied with policy CSF2 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (“policy CSF2”) which provided that, within the built-up areas excluded from green belt, the council would not allow any development which resulted in the loss of the community service or facility on the site unless: (i) a replacement building and/or land could be provided in an equally convenient location; or (ii) it could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the council that the facility was no longer required for its existing use, or for any other community use in the built-up area; and (iii) other policies in the local plan would be complied with.
Held: The application was dismissed.
(1) On the facts, there was clearly conflicting evidence as regards the extent of the playing fields on the site which had all been fairly placed before the committee. The planning officer had set out why he believed the application complied with Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation” (“PPG17”) and Policy R2 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan (“policy R2”). The competing arguments had also been put before the committee. Nothing in the correspondence following the meeting changed that position so as to render any fact contentious. The defendants had made their decision taking into account all the relevant evidence and arguments. The committee was not misled as regards the availability of evidence. That decision and the basis upon which it was made could not in law be criticised.
(2) The defendants had been entitled to interpret policy CSF2 in a broad way, owing to its broad wording. They had been entitled to consider the then current use of the site as redundant private school buildings and compare that with what would be the outcome of the proposed development. Clearly the planning officer, and subsequently the committee, had taken the view that what would be provided was adequate to be policy compliant. In their consideration of the possible use of the site as a school, the defendants had been entitled to take a view upon the likelihood of that happening in the light of the information available to it. The officer’s report had dealt with the issue of the retention of the current permitted use of the site fairly and lawfully. There had been no error in setting out the relevant policy considerations or their interpretation: Westminster City Council v British Waterways Board [1985] AC 676, Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13; [2012] PLSCS 69 and R (on the application of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council) v Chiltern District Council [2013] EWHC 1877 (Admin) considered.
Ian Dove QC (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appeared for the claimants; Morag Ellis QC (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared for the defendants; Mark Lowe QC and Asitha Ranatunga (instructed by Pothecary Witham Weld) appeared for the interested party.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
R (on the application of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council) v Chiltern District Council
Town and country planning – Planning permission – Judicial review – Defendant local authority granting planning permission for construction of multi-purpose development on former school site – Claimant parish council seeking judicial review – Whether defendants making errors of fact in relation to playing fields forming part of site – Whether defendants failing to have regard to retention of existing site for educational purposes – Application dismissedIn December 2010, the defendant local planning authority granted planning for a mixed use development, including 198 dwellings, to be constructed on the site of a former convent school in Buckinghamshire which had closed in 2006. A number of objections were raised to the proposal. The claimant parish council and others within the local community had expressed an aspiration to re-locate the village school to the site, and more specifically have put forward proposals at various stages for a mixed use of the site including both housing and the retention of the existing buildings as a school, and for the sale of the existing village school for development. Accordingly, the claimant sought judicial review of the defendants’ decision,They contended that there had been errors of fact relating to the loss of the playing fields that formed part of the site. A range of evidence had been put before the relevant committee of the defendants and it was alleged that the committee had been mislead as to the availability of evidence. Further, the defendants had failed to have regard to the retention of the existing use of the site for educational purposes. Therefore they had not complied with policy CSF2 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (“policy CSF2”) which provided that, within the built-up areas excluded from green belt, the council would not allow any development which resulted in the loss of the community service or facility on the site unless: (i) a replacement building and/or land could be provided in an equally convenient location; or (ii) it could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the council that the facility was no longer required for its existing use, or for any other community use in the built-up area; and (iii) other policies in the local plan would be complied with.Held: The application was dismissed.(1) On the facts, there was clearly conflicting evidence as regards the extent of the playing fields on the site which had all been fairly placed before the committee. The planning officer had set out why he believed the application complied with Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation” (“PPG17”) and Policy R2 of the Adopted Chiltern District Local Plan (“policy R2”). The competing arguments had also been put before the committee. Nothing in the correspondence following the meeting changed that position so as to render any fact contentious. The defendants had made their decision taking into account all the relevant evidence and arguments. The committee was not misled as regards the availability of evidence. That decision and the basis upon which it was made could not in law be criticised. (2) The defendants had been entitled to interpret policy CSF2 in a broad way, owing to its broad wording. They had been entitled to consider the then current use of the site as redundant private school buildings and compare that with what would be the outcome of the proposed development. Clearly the planning officer, and subsequently the committee, had taken the view that what would be provided was adequate to be policy compliant. In their consideration of the possible use of the site as a school, the defendants had been entitled to take a view upon the likelihood of that happening in the light of the information available to it. The officer’s report had dealt with the issue of the retention of the current permitted use of the site fairly and lawfully. There had been no error in setting out the relevant policy considerations or their interpretation: Westminster City Council v British Waterways Board [1985] AC 676, Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13; [2012] PLSCS 69 and R (on the application of Chalfont St Peter Parish Council) v Chiltern District Council [2013] EWHC 1877 (Admin) considered.Ian Dove QC (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appeared for the claimants; Morag Ellis QC (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared for the defendants; Mark Lowe QC and Asitha Ranatunga (instructed by Pothecary Witham Weld) appeared for the interested party.Eileen O’Grady, barrister
