Swindon Borough Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1627 (Admin)
Bentley Pauncefoot Parish Council v Redditch Borough Council & Anor
2 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 456 (Admin)
High Court
A parish council sued because they thought the council approved a big housing development without enough information about traffic and school buses. The judge decided the council had enough information and wasn't required to pay for school buses because the transport authority didn't ask for it.
Key Facts
- •Bentley Pauncefoot Parish Council (Claimant) challenged the grant of planning permission by Redditch and Bromsgrove Borough Councils (Defendants) for a large-scale development (2,560 dwellings) by Heyford Developments Ltd (Interested Party).
- •The development involved a hybrid planning application with outline and detailed elements, including access via several roads.
- •The claimant argued the committee was misled regarding traffic impact assessments, particularly concerning the initial use of Foxlydiate Lane for access.
- •The claimant also challenged the lack of a contribution towards educational transport, citing similar contributions in nearby developments.
- •The application initially faced delays due to concerns about Foxlydiate Lane's capacity to handle construction and residential traffic.
- •A Construction Access Review (CAR) was conducted to address these concerns, proposing a phased approach to access.
- •The planning permission was granted with conditions aimed at mitigating traffic impact on Foxlydiate Lane.
- •Subsequent non-material amendments to the planning conditions were granted.
- •The claimant pointed to other local planning decisions which included a contribution for school transport, arguing this should have been included for this development.
Legal Principles
Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 70(2) and Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, section 38(6)
Planning officers' reports to committees should be read with reasonable benevolence, and only materially misleading advice that would alter the decision renders it unlawful.
R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2019] PTSR 1452
A resolution to grant planning permission should be reconsidered if a new factor emerges that might materially affect the decision.
Not explicitly sourced but established case law principle
Decision-makers have a duty to take reasonable steps to acquaint themselves with relevant information (Wednesbury principles).
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
Outcomes
Ground 1 (misleading information regarding traffic impact) dismissed.
The court found the committee was not misled; the concerns raised were addressed through the CAR and subsequent revisions, and all relevant information was before the committee.
Ground 2 (misleading information on the duration of Foxlydiate Lane's use) dismissed.
The court accepted that the environmental statement and CAR assessed different construction phases, and the CAR's evidence-based assessment was unchallenged.
Permission to apply for judicial review on Ground 3 (lack of educational transport contribution) refused.
The court found no arguable error of law; the relevant consultees (Worcestershire Highways and County Council) did not request such a contribution, and the defendants were entitled to rely on their consultations.
Similar Cases
Joe Cook & Anor, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
[2024] EWHC 42 (Admin)
Macintosh Village (Management) Limited, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Council
[2022] EWHC 3002 (Admin)
Mair Bain v Secretary of State for Transport
[2024] EWHC 2216 (Admin)
Christine Pratt & Anor, R (on the application of) v Exeter City Council
[2024] EWHC 185 (Admin)