Third party developer applying for planning permission to develop brownfield site close to chemical works — Planning committee rejecting application on safety and environmental grounds — Local elections — New planning committee granting planning permission after private debate — Application for judicial review of decision — Application allowed
In 1993, the third party developer was granted outline planning permission to develop a brownfield site that adjoined land upon which stood a chemical refinery. The permission assumed a development of 50 properties, although the number had not been specified. Upon consultation, the Health and Safety Executive expressed reservations about the development, but stated that it would not object to the grant of planning permission because the land did not form part of a greenfield site.
In 2002, the third party submitted a full planning application for the site in respect of 77 dwellings. The planning committee, having considered the application in the light of site visits and having taken into account the reservations expressed by the Health and Safety Executive, refused to grant permission.
The interested party appealed to the Secretary of State. Pending the hearing of the appeal, the defendants submitted a detailed statement stating their objections. These included, inter alia, concerns relating to the increase in road traffic and to the safety of residents.
Prior to the hearing, the committee was reconstituted following local elections. The new committee reconsidered, and subsequently approved, the planning application.
The claimant, a resident in the area, applied for judicial review of that decision. He claimed that the committee had: (i) failed to explain their change of stance; (ii) failed to take into account material considerations, namely the specific concerns raised in their earlier statement; and (iii) undertaken much of the decision-making process in camera, when it should have been a matter of public debate.
Held: The application was allowed.
The committee’s decision was seriously flawed. They had ignored their own earlier objections made on the grounds of safety and environmental capacity. Some of these concerns had been addressed in closed session, but the reports upon which such discussion had been based appeared to have been erroneous and misleading. In any event, to deal with concerns for public safety solely in a private session from which the public was excluded was manifestly unfair. The grant of planning permission was quashed.
Paul Brown (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appeared for the claimant; Reuben Taylor (instructed by the solicitor to Tendring District Council) appeared for the defendants; Timothy Straker QC and Robert White (instructed by Laytons, of Guildford) appeared for the interested party.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
