Planning permission granted for residential development — Surrounding industrial users objecting — Allegations that purpose of granting permission to drive out industrial users — Whether exercise of power to grant permission subject to discontinuance procedure and compensation — Application dismissed
The first of the two applicants runs a business in animal waste, the second is a heavy metal fabricator; both occupy land in an industrial area of Exeter. In June 1988 the first respondents resolved to grant planning permission to the second respondents for the residential development of a site adjoining those of the applicants. During the appropriate committee meeting the members expressed various views about the continuance of the adjoining industrial users and the desirability of introducing housing into the area.
The applicants brought judicial review proceedings seeking certiorari to quash the decision of this meeting and the subsequent grant of planning permission. They contended that it was apparent from the discussion at the meeting that members intended to introduce housing into the area, that this would encourage complaints about the industrial users, and that these users would be driven our by the threat of actions in nuisance or otherwise. It was submitted that the power in section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to grant planning permission was subject to the later provisions of the Act; in particular the power in section 51 to issue a discontinuance order to require the cessation of uses of land. If it was the intention of the first respondents to move the industrial users, a discontinuance order should be used, in respect of which there is a compensation obligation; the use of the power to grant an incompatible planning permission was not wrong.
Held The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
The committee were well aware of the consequences of granting planning permission for residential development near to these industrial users. They had had full regard to the implications and had taken some precautions in the modifications and conditions to the permission. Not every view expressed at a committee meeting must be taken to be part of the reasons for a decision: R v London County Council, ex parte London & Provincial Electric Theatres Ltd [1915] 2 KB 466.
It is not improper to grant planning permission for the use of one site where it is possible that this will cause the user of a second site to move or to cease a use that then becomes incompatible. There is no obligation to use the alternative powers to require discontinuance in section 51 of the 1971 Act. The applicants had no expectation of being able to continue their industrial uses without causing a nuisance; they could not demand some embargo on the grant of planning permission for adjoining land so as to protect their own activities.
Stringer v Minister of Housing and Local Government
[1970] 1 WLR 1281 considered.
James Gilliland QC and Geraint Thomas (instructed by Goodall & Son, of Mirfield, West Yorkshire) appeared for the applicants; Jeremy Sullivan QC and Brian Ash (instructed by the solicitor to Exeter City District Council) appeared for the first respondents; and Nicholas Burton (instructed by Trowers & Hamlins, of Exeter) appeared for the other respondents.
