High Court dismisses claim that planning officers misled councillors

Mr Justice Kimblin heard developer Abbey Manor Group applied for outline planning permission for an urban extension of up to 765 homes with employment and retail space and other amenities including a school, health centre and neighbourhood centre.

This gained permission despite the parish council’s objections and it later secured a judicial review on a single ground that the local plan said the site allocation should provide the school, health centre and neighbourhood centre

Kimblin J said he had to determine “does the policy mean that the result should be that each type of development is delivered or does it mean that planning permission should be granted accordingly and it is a matter for the market as to whether or not each element of the scheme is actually built?

Mudford argued Somerset erred in concluding that this policy was complied with.

Kimblin J said the planning permission was for the entirety of the allocation, and ‘provides’, in respect of the neighbourhood centre, meant it had been constructed and is in use by or before the completion of the residential development which it would serve.

“It is not a sensible reading of the policy to interpret 'should provide' to mean that land for the construction of a neighbourhood centre should be provided,” he said.

The judge went on to note: “I do not accept the advice which officers gave was incorrect to a material degree.

“Officers were responding to representations to the effect that a neighbourhood centre should be constructed by the developer of the site by a specified trigger point. That trigger would be a number of dwellings. This was not a debate as to the meaning of the policy but as to its application.”

In this case, officers advised members provision of the neighbourhood centre should be left to the market, without a related restriction on residential development, and they did not need to be certain that the neighbourhood centre would be delivered.

Kimblin J said that when a decision comes to be made on the discharge of the condition concerned, “it will again be open to officers and members of the council to maintain such control as they then consider is necessary and consistent with policy.

“For these reasons, I have concluded that officers neither misinterpreted the policy nor misled members of the council.”

During the case, the judge complained that “large parts of the witness statements in this case are a mix of opinion and argument.

“Argument is for submission by the advocates, in writing and orally. It is an unhelpful blurring of roles and functions for witnesses to argue the case.”