Application for planning permission for site within major regeneration project – Council approving application – Application for decision to be quashed – Whether council prejudging issues or failing to give application proper consideration – Whether reasonable to approve application despite uncertainties as to effect of noise – Application dismissed
An application for planning permission was submitted for a derelict site to the east of Cotton End and south of the River Nene, at Southbridge, Northampton. The application was described as “The regeneration of the site including the restoration and conversion of three existing buildings. The provision of private and social housing. The building of new roads and a pedestrian river bridge and commercial & leisure buildings”. The site formed part of an area identified as suitable for major regeneration projects with the benefit of funding from the government’s Single Regeneration Budget. The development plan, so far as material, consisted of the Northampton Local Plan, which was adopted in June 1997. Policy D17 made provision for planning permission to be granted for a mix of residential, business and leisure uses on the site. Policy H7 stated that outside the primary residential areas, planning permission would only be granted where a satisfactory residential environment could be achieved. On July 17 1997 the respondent council approved the application. The applicants, who occupied industrial premises on neighbouring land, objected to the proposed development contending that the council’s decision to grant approval in principle should be quashed because it was unlawful and Wednesbury unreasonable. It was submitted that the council had failed to give proper consideration to the application and that the outcome had been predetermined. It was also submitted that there was insufficient material for the conclusion that sufficient measures could be employed in order to control the level of noise and achieve an acceptable level of residential amenity, and that it was unreasonable to proceed on that basis.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. The process of consideration had been full and careful and the council had not prejudged the issues or failed to give proper consideration to the merits of the application. That was illustrated by the length and contents of the report prepared by the council on the planning issues and by the fact the members made two site visits and received a lengthy oral presentation at the meeting at which the decision was taken.
2. It was open to the council to give approval in principle as a reasonable decision maker despite the existence of uncertainties as to the effect of noise. Looking at the position overall, it could not be concluded that it was irrational to conclude that, as a matter of probability, sufficient mitigation measures could be employed to achieve an acceptable level of residential amenity, or to leave further work to be done and mitigation measures to be decided upon in the context of conditions after the giving of approval in principle.
Anthony Thomas Smith QC and Nadia Sharif (instructed by Eyton Morris Winfield, of Northampton) appeared for the first applicant; David Elvin (instructed by the solicitor to Northampton Borough council) appeared for the respondents; the second applicant did not appear and was not represented.