Planning application – Material considerations – Report of advisory body – First respondents granting planning permission for redevelopment of station – Report of advisory body left out of consideration in determining planning application – Whether first respondents thereby failing to take material considerations into account – Grant of planning permission upheld – Appeal dismissed
The appellant was a local resident and a member of a residents’ action group that opposed plans by the second respondent for planning permission to redevelop Twickenham railway station by demolishing the existing station building and replacing it with a new station concourse with stairs and lifts to platforms, plus three buildings, between two and seven storeys high, containing 115 residential units in addition to floor space for retail, professional and restaurant and café uses. Those plans were the subject of a planning application submitted to the first respondent local planning authority.
The first respondents’ planning officers made a favourable report on the proposals, advising that the development would provide improved facilities for residents, local employees and visitors, as well as offering improvements and regeneration benefits to the surrounding area. Although the buildings would exceed a height limit in the first respondents’ adopted development management plan, the officers advised that the development was acceptable within the relevant plan policy where it had been the subject of a full design justification and there was significant local community support for the public benefits of the overall scheme. They advised that a report on the proposals by the Twickenham Advisory Panel (TAP), a body that had been formed to work with the first respondents on plans for the regeneration of the town, was not material to the consideration of the planning application since it had not been formally submitted to planning officers. However, copies of the report, which was critical of the second respondent’s proposals, had been distributed to the first respondents by the time of the planning committee meeting at which the application was considered. The first respondents granted planning permission for the development in March 2012.
In judicial review proceedings to challenge that decision, the appellant contended that the first respondents had proceeded on the basis of incorrect advice from their planning officers as to the immateriality of the TAP report and had thereby failed to take into account a material consideration. The claim was dismissed in the court below and the appellant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
It was clear that the TAP report related to the planning application, was intended to be taken into account in the planning committee’s consideration of the application and was being distributed to officers for that purpose. There was nothing to suggest that the first respondents had thought otherwise and it was surprising that the planning officers had advised members of the planning committee to leave the report out of consideration. Although TAP’s stated purpose was to advise on and assist in the implementation of a plan for the regeneration of Twickenham, its terms of reference also extended to consideration of specific site projects and its submission of a report on the second respondent’s proposals was not outside its remit. Moreover, the first respondents had been expecting the report and it had actually been considered by their officers once it was received. The obvious course would have been to summarise the report for members of the planning committee as part of the public and other representations. There was no satisfactory explanation of why that had not been done.
However, in all the circumstances of the case, the resulting failure of the planning committee to take the report into account did not amount to a breach of the statutory duty to have regard to material considerations. All the points of substance made in the TAP report had been covered in the officers’ report and were taken into consideration in any event. Moreover, the TAP report contained nothing that was capable of affecting the committee’s conclusion that the proposal accorded overall with the development plan or its specific findings relevant to the management plan policy on building height. The report contained nothing that could have affected the committee’s assessment of the acceptability of the design and architectural approach of the proposed development or undermined the view that there was significant local community support for the public benefits of the overall scheme. The alternative proposals recommended by the report were expressed in very general terms when compared with the specific alternative proposals put forward by the appellant’s action group and dealt with in the officers’ report.
Although TAP’s views on the development were worthy of respect in light of its position as an advisory body established by the first respondents, it did not have the status of a statutory consultee. So far as it was conveying the views of members of the public who had taken part in its processes, it was likely that those same members of the public had submitted their own representations directly to the first respondents. The making of those points by TAP specifically could not give any greater weight to those points than they already had in the decision-making process.
Douglas Edwards QC (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appeared for the appellant; Rupert Warren QC (instructed by the legal department of Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council) appeared for the first respondents; Neil Cameron QC (instructed by Eversheds LLP) appeared for the second respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
R (on the application of Watson) v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council and another
Planning application – Material considerations – Report of advisory body – First respondents granting planning permission for redevelopment of station – Report of advisory body left out of consideration in determining planning application – Whether first respondents thereby failing to take material considerations into account – Grant of planning permission upheld – Appeal dismissedThe appellant was a local resident and a member of a residents’ action group that opposed plans by the second respondent for planning permission to redevelop Twickenham railway station by demolishing the existing station building and replacing it with a new station concourse with stairs and lifts to platforms, plus three buildings, between two and seven storeys high, containing 115 residential units in addition to floor space for retail, professional and restaurant and café uses. Those plans were the subject of a planning application submitted to the first respondent local planning authority.The first respondents’ planning officers made a favourable report on the proposals, advising that the development would provide improved facilities for residents, local employees and visitors, as well as offering improvements and regeneration benefits to the surrounding area. Although the buildings would exceed a height limit in the first respondents’ adopted development management plan, the officers advised that the development was acceptable within the relevant plan policy where it had been the subject of a full design justification and there was significant local community support for the public benefits of the overall scheme. They advised that a report on the proposals by the Twickenham Advisory Panel (TAP), a body that had been formed to work with the first respondents on plans for the regeneration of the town, was not material to the consideration of the planning application since it had not been formally submitted to planning officers. However, copies of the report, which was critical of the second respondent’s proposals, had been distributed to the first respondents by the time of the planning committee meeting at which the application was considered. The first respondents granted planning permission for the development in March 2012.In judicial review proceedings to challenge that decision, the appellant contended that the first respondents had proceeded on the basis of incorrect advice from their planning officers as to the immateriality of the TAP report and had thereby failed to take into account a material consideration. The claim was dismissed in the court below and the appellant appealed.Held: The appeal was dismissed. It was clear that the TAP report related to the planning application, was intended to be taken into account in the planning committee’s consideration of the application and was being distributed to officers for that purpose. There was nothing to suggest that the first respondents had thought otherwise and it was surprising that the planning officers had advised members of the planning committee to leave the report out of consideration. Although TAP’s stated purpose was to advise on and assist in the implementation of a plan for the regeneration of Twickenham, its terms of reference also extended to consideration of specific site projects and its submission of a report on the second respondent’s proposals was not outside its remit. Moreover, the first respondents had been expecting the report and it had actually been considered by their officers once it was received. The obvious course would have been to summarise the report for members of the planning committee as part of the public and other representations. There was no satisfactory explanation of why that had not been done.However, in all the circumstances of the case, the resulting failure of the planning committee to take the report into account did not amount to a breach of the statutory duty to have regard to material considerations. All the points of substance made in the TAP report had been covered in the officers’ report and were taken into consideration in any event. Moreover, the TAP report contained nothing that was capable of affecting the committee’s conclusion that the proposal accorded overall with the development plan or its specific findings relevant to the management plan policy on building height. The report contained nothing that could have affected the committee’s assessment of the acceptability of the design and architectural approach of the proposed development or undermined the view that there was significant local community support for the public benefits of the overall scheme. The alternative proposals recommended by the report were expressed in very general terms when compared with the specific alternative proposals put forward by the appellant’s action group and dealt with in the officers’ report.Although TAP’s views on the development were worthy of respect in light of its position as an advisory body established by the first respondents, it did not have the status of a statutory consultee. So far as it was conveying the views of members of the public who had taken part in its processes, it was likely that those same members of the public had submitted their own representations directly to the first respondents. The making of those points by TAP specifically could not give any greater weight to those points than they already had in the decision-making process.Douglas Edwards QC (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appeared for the appellant; Rupert Warren QC (instructed by the legal department of Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council) appeared for the first respondents; Neil Cameron QC (instructed by Eversheds LLP) appeared for the second respondent.Sally Dobson, barrister