R (on the application of Park Pharmacy Trust) v Plymouth City Council

Planning application – Applicant wrongly named – Permission granted – Whether error rendering application a nullity – Whether bias by defendant council in determining application – Claim dismissed The claimant trust maintained a traditional medicinal garden within the curtilage of a lodge owned by the defendant council and located in a conservation area. The defendant refused two applications by a third party for planning permission for a development of town houses on part of that land on the basis that the development would harm the character and appearance of the conservation area and would leave the lodge with insufficient curtilage. They subsequently received a third application for a development consisting of the demolition of a garage on adjoining land, the rebuilding of a coach house and the construction of four town houses on the garage land and part of the defendants’ land. That application was submitted by an architect as agent for two companies, Emeris Ltd and Coolart Ltd, which proposed to purchase and develop the site as a joint venture. However, the application form errroneously described the applicant as “Emeris Coolart Ltd”; the address of Emeris Ltd was given as the applicant’s address.The claimant objected to the application on the ground that the site provided a valuable educational and community facility, which should be protected from development. The defendants resolved to grant planning permission, concluding that the scheme overcame the problems presented by the previous applications, was appropriate in the setting of the conservation area and left the lodge with sufficient curtilage.The claimant brought judicial review proceedings to challenge the grant of permission. It contended that, inter alia: (i) there had been no properly constituted planning application since the applicant was wrongly named; and (ii) there was actual or apparent bias on the part of the defendants, in that the planning control officers had been unduly influenced by the asset management department, which wished to sell the land to the applicant. It also alleged that the defendants had misapplied the relevant planning policies, taken into acccount irrelevant considerations and given inadequate reasons for their decision.Held: The claim was dismissed. (1) There was no authority that misdescription of an applicant for planning permission rendered the application a nullity. As a matter of principle, the identity of the applicant was irrelevant to the merits of the application. Although it was important that an applicant was correctly identified so that the planning authority knew with whom they had to deal, that was a practical consideration and did not arise in the instant case where the applicants were acting through the architect as an intermediary. The innocent mistake in naming them had not misled or prejudiced any party.(2) There was no evidence of actual or apparent bias in determining the planning application. The defendants’ functions of asset management and planning control were separate and the planning officers had given their own views. A case of bias involved allegations of serious misconduct and should not be advanced in the absence of sufficient evidence.(3) The defendants had properly applied planning policy, had not taken into account irrelevant considerations and had given sufficient reasons for their decision.Robert Fookes (instructed by Foot Anstey, of Plymouth) appeared for the claimant; James Findlay (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared for the defendants.Sally Dobson, barrister