R (on the application of Richardson and another) v North Yorkshire County Council and others
Simon Brown, Keene and Scott Baker LJJ
Planning permission for quarry extension — Environmental report — Whether compliance with requirement to state environmental information taken into consideration — Whether decision to be quashed for failure to give reasons — Regulations 3(2) and 21(1) of Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 — Appeal dismissed
The appellants objected to an application by the interested party for planning permission to extend its quarry. The first appellant, a member of the first respondent council, had been barred from attending the planning committee meeting at which the application was considered, on the ground that he had a “prejudicial interest” and was accordingly disqualified under their code of conduct.
At the meeting, the planning committee resolved to grant planning permission, as recommended in an environmental report. The minutes of that resolution made no mention of the report, although a subsequent notice of decision issued by the council stated that, in accordance with article 22(2) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, the accompanying environmental information had been taken into account in reaching their decision. The notice was subsequently entered onto the council’s register, but it did not include a statement of reasons for the decision.
Planning permission for quarry extension — Environmental report — Whether compliance with requirement to state environmental information taken into consideration — Whether decision to be quashed for failure to give reasons — Regulations 3(2) and 21(1) of Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 — Appeal dismissed
The appellants objected to an application by the interested party for planning permission to extend its quarry. The first appellant, a member of the first respondent council, had been barred from attending the planning committee meeting at which the application was considered, on the ground that he had a “prejudicial interest” and was accordingly disqualified under their code of conduct.
At the meeting, the planning committee resolved to grant planning permission, as recommended in an environmental report. The minutes of that resolution made no mention of the report, although a subsequent notice of decision issued by the council stated that, in accordance with article 22(2) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, the accompanying environmental information had been taken into account in reaching their decision. The notice was subsequently entered onto the council’s register, but it did not include a statement of reasons for the decision.
The appellants brought a judicial review claim challenging the validity of the grant of planning permission. They contended that: (i) the council had breached the requirement in regulation 3(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (introduced to implement Directive 85/337/EEC) to state in their decision that they had taken the environmental information into consideration, since their decision for that purpose was the resolution at the meeting, rather than the subsequent permission and notice of decision; (ii) the notice itself failed to satisfy the regulation 3(2) requirement; (iii) the failure to include on the register a statement of the main reasons for the decision was contrary to regulation 21(1); and (iv) it been unlawful to exclude the first appellant from the committee meeting. The judge dismissed the claim on all grounds, and the appellants appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
1. Domestic law provided for a single decision on the question of development permission, that being the actual grant of permission: R (on the application of Barker) v Bromley London Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1766; [2003] Env LR 25 applied. The statement contained in the council’s notice of decision was in the language required by regulation 3(2), and it was, accordingly, impossible to impugn the performance of that requirement.
2. The requirement to give reasons, imposed upon planning authorities under regulation 21(1), was for the purpose of informing the public retrospectively of the basis for the decision, rather than to dictate the course, or even the quality, of the decision-making process. The directive contemplated its central purpose as being achieved irrespective of whether reasons were or were not to be given. The failure to comply with the regulation 21(1) requirement did not compel the court to quash the permission itself: Berkeley v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No 1) [2000] 3 PLR 111 considered.
3. The first appellant did have a prejudicial interest within the meaning of the council’s code of conduct, and the council had been entitled to exclude him from the meeting.
Robert McCracken QC and Gregory Jones (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appeared for the appellants; Timothy Straker QC and Paul Greatorex (instructed by the solicitor to North Yorkshire County Council) appeared for the first respondents; Philip Sales and James Maurici (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the second respondent, the First Secretary of State; Thomas Hill (instructed by Mills & Reeves, of Cambridge) appeared for the interested party, Brown & Potter Ltd.
Sally Dobson, barrister
