Town and country planning – Planning permission – Judicial review – Defendant local authority granting planning permission to interested party for demolition of football stadium and development on site – Claimant company seeking judicial review – Whether planning officer giving misleading report – Whether grant of permission being consistent with basis of approval – Application dismissed
The second interested party owned a football stadium situated on 3.3 hectares of land in Horfield and surrounded by mainly terraced residential properties. The site was located about 100 metres from the town centre and 325 metres from the defined primary shopping area of that town centre. The second interested party wished to relocate to a different site, as part of a proposed development project which depended financially upon the sale of the stadium for development. The second interested party proposed with the first interested party, to development on the site including an internal area supermarket, 65 dwellings, floorspace that could be used for commercial or community purposes, a public open space and associated works. Therefore, the first interested party applied for planning permission for the demolition of the stadium and the proposed developments. The defendant local authority’s planning committee approved the application on the basis of the planning officer’s recommendation, said to be based on advice from independent retail consultants, and planning permission was granted subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement.
The claimant company, incorporated by members of an association of local traders and residents who objected to the proposed development, applied for judicial review of the decision. It contended, amongst other things, that: (i) the officer’s report had been materially misleading and the committee had approved the application on the basis of a misunderstanding of the evidence and advice as to the extent of the impact on the town centre, which had been a material and critical consideration in the determination of the application; and (ii) the committee had approved the application only on the basis that specified measures to mitigate the retail impact of the proposal and ensure required compliance with relevant regulations would be identified, agreed with relevant parties and incorporated into the section 106 agreement and had authorised the grant of planning permission only on that basis. Since the section 106 agreement had not contained those specified measures, the grant of planning permission did not compliance with regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (SI2010/948) and had been ultra vires the committee’s authorisation.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
(1) An officer’s report had to be read as a whole. One could not take individual points and subject them to a minute consideration on an exegetical basis. In construing reports, it also had to be borne in mind that they were addressed to a knowledgeable readership, including council members who, by virtue of that membership, might be expected to have a substantial local and background knowledge. In the present case, the officer’s report had not been misleading. Further, the report as a whole had, with appropriate fairness and fullness, properly identified the retail impact of the proposed development on the town centre, and had properly set out for the committee the evidence relating to that issue including, fairly and fully, the expert evidence: R v Selby District Council, ex parte Oxton Farms and another [1977] PLSCS 105; [1997] EGCS 60, R v Mendip District Council, ex parte Fabre (2000) 80 P&CR 500, R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] 2 AC 295; [2001] 2 PLR 76, R (on the application of Morge) v Hampshire County Council [2011] UKSC 2, R (Maxwell) v Wiltshire Council [2011] EWHC 1840 (Admin); [2011] PLSCS 187, R (on the application of Zurich Assurance Ltd, trading as Threadneedle Property Investments) v North Lincolnshire Council [2012] EWHC 3708 (Admin), Bishops Stortford Civic Federation v East Hertfordshire District Council [2014] EWHC 348 (Admin); [2014] PLSCS 66 applied.
(2) The decision-maker had to consider the nature and extent of the predicted adverse impact and how mitigating measures would address that impact. However, the precise detail of the measures need not be specified at or before the obligation was entered into, and then locked into that obligation, particularly when the authority was going to have control over the committed monies. In the present case, it had been clear what the committee had resolved to do and the basis of that resolution. They had been entitled to come to the conclusions they had. There had been no need to tie the first interested party into a specific package of mitigation measures in the section 106 agreement; nor to identify and agree, prior to the execution of that agreement, specific measures which the first interested party would have to make. Consequently, the grant of planning permission had not been inconsistent with either the basis upon which the committee had approved the application and thus not outside the officer’s powers as delegated to him by the committee or with the 2010 Regulations: R (on the application of Mid-Counties Co-operative Ltd) v Forest of Dean District Council [2013] EWHC 1908 (Admin); [2013] PLSCS 161 considered.
Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by Richard Buxton Environmental & Public Law Solicitors) appeared for the claimant; James Findlay QC and Richard Ground (instructed by Head of Legal Services, Bristol City Council) appeared for the defendants.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
