Planning permission – Summary of reasons for grant – Claimants objecting to planning application on ground relating to national planning guidance in PPS 4 – Defendants granting permission – Summary of reasons stating that proposal assessed to be in compliance with PPS 4 – Whether required to state reasons why so assessed – Whether that matter sufficiently dealt with in planning officers’ report on basis of which permission granted – Claim dismissed
The interested party operated a food store on a site in Telford town centre that it held on a lease from the claimants. In 2009, with a view to relocating, it contracted to purchase another site in Telford from the defendant council, conditional on the grant of planning permission for a new food store. A planning application was submitted. The claimants countered with an application for a new food store on land adjacent to the existing store. They objected to the interested party’s application on various grounds, some of which related to the sequential approach to development and impact assessment required under national planning guidance. The relevant guidance was at the time contained in PPS 6 but was later superseded by the equivalent provisions of PPS 4.
In March 2010, the defendants granted planning permission for the interested party’s development, subject to conditions. In doing so, they followed the advice in their planning officers’ report, which had dealt in detail with the national planning guidance issues. In their summary of reasons for the grant of permission, given under article 22(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, the defendants stated that the proposed retail store had been assessed to be in accordance with PPS 4.
The claimants applied for permission to seek judicial review of the defendants’ decision. Permission was refused in the Administrative Court but granted by the Court of Appeal, which retained the case for hearing of the substantive claim.
The claimants contended that: (i) the defendants’ summary of reasons was inadequate in that it should have explained why the proposal had been assessed to be in accordance with the policies of PPS 4, rather than simply stating that to be the case; and (ii) the defendants had failed to take account of a material consideration, namely the claimants’ right to compensation under section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for breach of their private law rights under certain restrictive covenants affecting the defendants’ site.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
(1) The requirement for a summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission was to be contrasted with the requirement to give full reasons when refusing permission. The statutory requirement was for a summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission, not a summary of the reasons for rejecting an objector’s representations, even on a principal issue, or a summary of reasons for reasons: R (on the application of Siraj) v Kirklees Metropolitan Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1286; [2011] JPL 571 and R (on the application of Ling (Bridlington) Ltd) v East Riding of Yorkshire County Council [2006] EWHC 1604 (Admin); [2007] JPL 396 applied. In a case where the defendants were following the recommendation in the planning officers’ report and adopting its statement of reasons, a relatively brief summary of reasons sufficed. The summary given by the defendants was adequate to comply with the statutory requirement. It was apparent on the face of the summary that planning permission had been granted because, so far as material, the proposal was assessed to be in accordance with PPS 4. That necessarily entailed an acceptance that the requirements of the sequential approach and of the impact assessment, as set out in the relevant policies, were met. There was no need for the summary to spell that out in terms. Nor was it necessary to explain why the proposal was assessed to meet the requirements of the sequential approach and the impact assessment; that would involve the giving of reasons for rejecting the claimants’ objections and/or the giving of reasons for reasons. It was relevant that the officers’ report had dealt at length with the considerations material to the sequential approach and the impact assessment; that report showed the reasoning that underlay the defendants’ acceptance that the proposal was in accordance with PPS 4.
(2) Private law rights would not normally be material to a planning decision. The payment of compensation under section 237 of the 1990 Act could have given rise to a material consideration, for the purposes of the planning decision, only if the level of compensation was so substantial that it might prevent or delay the development of the defendants’ site. The level of compensation that the defendants had been advised was applied could not have that effect. On the information then available to the defendants, the compensation issue was not a consideration of any consequence and they had not been obliged to take account of it.
Christopher Katkowski QC and Christopher Boyle (instructed by Nabarro LLP) appeared for the claimants; Ian Dove QC and Hugh Richards (instructed by the legal department of Telford and Wrekin Council) appeared for the defendants; Jeremy Cahill QC and Satnam Choongh (instructed by Osborne Clarke) appeared for the interested party.
Sally Dobson, barrister
