Court quashes planning permission grant due to inadequate assessment of impact on residents and failure to investigate alternative access: Pratt v Exeter City Council

Citation: [2024] EWHC 185 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of Christine Pratt & Anor, R (on the application of) v Exeter City Council assesses the decision-making process in the grant of outline planning permission for a housing development. It involves judicial review principles, statutory duty compliance, and the material consideration of planning guidance. This article dissects the legal principles applied and links them to specific elements within the case.

Key Facts

Christine Pratt and a Partnership challenged Exeter City Council’s decision to grant outline planning permission to a developer (IP1) for a significant housing scheme. The Claimants contended that the Council failed to assess the impact of the proposed development’s access scheme on residents and the Council’s inadequate investigation regarding the availability of a proposed alternative access via land owned by the Partnership.

Two key issues stood out:

  1. The impact of IP1’s access scheme on existing residents.
  2. The feasibility of implementing an alternative access scheme guided by the Newcourt Masterplan, which was divergent from the Council’s prior consistent approach that development traffic would be accessed from the A379 and Topsham Road.

The case encapsulates several legal principles which are pivotal to judicial review and the planning decision process:

Material Considerations and Development Plan Adherence

The Court reinforced the principle that in making a determination under the planning acts, the decision must accord with the development plan unless material considerations suggest otherwise (Section 70(2) TCPA 1990 and Section 38(6) PCPA 2004).

Tameside Duty

The Court underscored the ‘Tameside duty’, referring to the requirement that a public body must take reasonable steps to acquaint itself with relevant information for decision-making (R (Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Justice).

Material Misleading Advice

Misleading advice by a planning officer in a report can constitute an error in law if it materially misleads members of a planning committee on a decision (R (Mansell) v Tonbridge & Malling BC).

Grampian Conditions

A Grampian condition was pertinent in the case, where it can be used to prohibit development authorized by the planning permission until a particular action is taken, especially in relation to third-party land (Planning Practice Guidance).

Public Law Error

For a claim in judicial review to succeed, a claimant must show a public law error by the decision-maker arising from the decision process (Seddon Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment).

Duty to Investigate under Tameside

The Council was found to have an obligation to consider whether third-party land options were reasonably available, given the objections from the claimants and considering all material information (R (Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Justice).

Outcomes

The Court found for the Claimants on two grounds:

  1. The Council failed to assess the impact of the development’s proposed access scheme on existing residents (Ground 1).
  2. The Council failed to adequately investigate the availability of the Wynards and Poultons land for providing alternative access as per the Masterplan (Ground 2).

The grounds succeeded on the basis that there was inadequate consideration of material considerations, failure to adhere to the development plan, and a breach of the Tameside duty for further investigation. This resulted in the quashing of the grant of planning permission.

Conclusion

The case reaffirms essential principles in the context of UK planning law and judicial review. It highlights the necessity for thorough assessment and consideration of impacts on existing amenities, investigation of material considerations, and reliance on accurate and complete advice in planning reports. Legal professionals will note the importance of ensuring that planning authorities fulfill these obligations when contemplating the grant of planning permission, particularly when changes to existing access schemes or alternative proposals are involved.