Planning permission and conservation area consent granted subject to condition – Application by neighbouring resident for judicial review – Whether condition uncertain or unrelated to planning purposes – Application allowed – Developer’s appeal allowed
In 1995 a developer applied for planning permission to develop land in a conservation area at 192-216 Hotwel Road, Bristol. The land had remained unused for many years. The application required conservation area consent for the demolition of New Buckingham Chapel, which had been designed by Sir George Oakley and was claimed to be a local landmark. The application was refused. On 10 April 1996 the developer submitted a second application, which had been produced after consultation with the council. The application sought permission for the construction of 32 flats for 153 students with 60 cycle spaces and 33 parking spaces.
Planning permission and conservation area consent were granted, subject to a condition that: “Prior to the occupation of the building for the use hereby approved, full details of the proposed management agreement including supervision and welfare/support provision for the student occupiers and also a strict system of control over the keeping of motor vehicles by occupiers of the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority. The approved arrangements shall be implemented and maintained from the first occupation of the building; any intended variation to these on-site management arrangements or the internal arrangement of the accommodation shown on the approved plans shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented and maintained.”
The applicant, a neighbouring resident, applied for judicial review of the council’s decision to grant planning permission and Conservation Area Consent. The judge allowed the application on the ground that the condition was too uncertain and, in part at least, had nothing to do with planning purposes. The developer, as an interested party, appealed.
Held:The appeal was allowed.
1. The challenge to the condition had been based on the fact that its language was uncertain as to its effect, not on the fact that it would be difficult to enforce: see Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council [1961] AC 636. However, the language of the condition was clear. A challenge of unlawfulness because it would be difficult to enforce would have to be on the grounds of Wednesbury unreasonableness: see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, a challenge that had not been mounted.
2. A condition of planning permission was required to fulfil a planning purpose, to be fairly and reasonably related to the development and not to be manifestly unreasonable: see Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578. The incorporation of the management agreement did not render the condition unreasonable, since such an agreement was common sense to ensure co-operation between the university and the local planning authority. Its requirement for supervision and welfare/support provision for the student occupiers could, in certain circumstances, have been considered to be a social rather than a planning consideration. However, the words had to be viewed in their context and with regard to the relevant commitment of the council. The reference to welfare and support were linked to the objective need to police the use of motor vehicles, and, accordingly, it could be concluded that they were required to fulfil a planning purpose.
Craig Howell Williams (instructed by Laytons, Bristol) appeared for the appellant; the applicant and the respondent did not appear and were not represented.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
