Mark Snee & Technoprint Plc (R) v Leeds City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Wyn Williams |
| Judgment Date | 24 March 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 581 (Admin) |
| Date | 24 March 2010 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4212/2008 |
[2010] EWHC 581 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Cardiff Crown Court
The Law Courts
Cathays Park
Cardiff CF10 3PG
Before: Mr Justice Wyn Williams
Case No: CO/4212/2008
Paul Greatorex (instructed by Bar Public Access Scheme) for the Claimants
Iain Colville (instructed by Legal Department) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 15 February 2010
Mr Justice Wyn Williams:
Introduction
On 7 February 2008 one David Jones, a principal planning officer employed by the Defendant, granted planning permission to the Interested Party for the demolition of a workshop at 10 Wide Lane, Morley and the erection upon site of 12 flats. In these proceedings the Claimants allege that Mr Jones was not authorised to grant permission since no valid scheme of delegation existed at the time the permission was granted. In the Statement of Facts and Grounds accompanying the Claim Form the issue is identified as Ground 2.
On 9 December 2009 I handed down a judgment in which I concluded that at the material time the Defendant had a valid scheme for delegating to its officers decisions such as determining planning applications. Accordingly, I declined to quash the planning permission on the basis of Ground 2. However, the Claimants have always relied upon other grounds in support of their claim that the planning permission should be quashed. This judgment considers the other grounds relied upon by the Claimant (Grounds 1, 3 and 4). Before considering each ground, in turn, however, I propose to set out a number of uncontroversial but relevant matters.
The Interested Party submitted its application for planning permission on or about 8 November 2007. The application site was identified as 10 Wide Lane Morley and the application sought permission for the demolition of the building which then existed at 10 Wide Lane and its replacement with flats. 10 Wide Lane is situated near the centre of Morley and near a designated conservation area.
The scheme of delegation which was in force in late 2007 and early 2008 delegated the determination of all planning applications to the Chief Planning Officer. In turn, the Chief Planning Officer was empowered to delegate to principal planning officers. However the scheme of delegation provided for ‘Exceptions’ in the following terms:—
“The Chief Planning Officer is not authorised to discharge the following functions:
Town and Country Planning and Development Control
(a) The determination of applications following a written request to the Chief Planning Services and Development Officer by
• A Ward Member concerning an application within his/her ward
• A Chair of an Area Committee, concerning an application within his/her Area Committee area
that an application be referred to the relevant Plans Panel;
(b) the determination of applications for development that would constitute a significant departure from the Development Plan, including a significant departure from any Local Development Framework currently in force;
(c) the determination of applications for development that would be materially different from any supplementary planning guidance or planning brief approved by or on behalf of the Council;
(d) the determination of applications for major development which would have significant impact on local communities;
(e) the approval of applications, where approval would reverse a previous decision taken by Plans Panel;
(f) the approval of applications, where approval would conflict with an objection raised by statutory technical consultees;
(g) where the Chief Planning Officer considers that the application should be referred to the relevant Plans Panel for determination because of the significance, impact or sensitivity of the proposal;
(h) the determination of applications submitted in a personal capacity by or on behalf of Members, the Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive, Directors, Chief Officers or any Officer who carries out development control functions.”
A footnote to the exception at (a) specified that the application in writing had to be made within 21 days of the date of the notification of the application and contain reasons for the request based upon material planning considerations.
“Significant” in the phrase “significant departure” in sub-paragraph (b) was to
be understood as in the Town and Country Planning …(Departures) Directions
The scheme defined major development within sub-paragraph (d) as including
“Residential development involving the erection of 10 or more dwellings….”
In the event that the Chief Planning Officer was not authorised to discharge the functions specified in the Exceptions the function would ordinarily be discharged by a Plans Panel. Such a Panel was constituted by members of the Defendant. It is unnecessary to describe the constitution of Plans Panels in more detail.
The Claimants’ Grounds of Challenge
Ground 1
The Claimants contend that the decision to grant planning permission to the Interested Party was reached in a manner which was procedurally unfair. It is to be noted that it is not alleged that the decision was reached in a manner which was unfair to all those having an interest in the process. The unfairness identified is unfairness to the Claimants and only the Claimants. Nonetheless, submits Mr Greatorex, the planning permission should be quashed.
In order to understand this ground of challenge it is necessary to recount the history of events as they unfolded following the submission of the planning application on 8 November 2007.
When a planning application is received by the Defendant it is allocated to a case officer. The case officer to whom this application was allocated was Mr Richard Smith. A preliminary decision is then taken upon whether the application is one which falls to be determined by an officer. In this case the evidence adduced by the Defendant asserts, positively, that it was determined, from the outset, that the application should be determined by an officer (see paragraph 4 witness statement of Mr David Jones dated 24 October 2008).
It is clear that in the weeks immediately following the receipt of the application Mr Smith engaged in a process of consultation with a number of bodies. They included a statutory consultee, Yorkshire Water, and other bodies which were likely to have views, one way or the other, upon the merits of the application.
The application generated one letter of support – from Morley Town Council – and four letters of objection. The four letters of objection were received by the Defendant just before Christmas 2007. One of the letters of objection was from the Claimants. The Second Claimant wrote a long and detailed letter of objection both on his own behalf and on behalf of the First Claimant. The letter dealt exclusively with the planning merits of the application.
Neither the Claimants nor the other objectors suggested in their letters of objection that the application should be considered by a Plans Panel as opposed to an officer of the Defendant. Indeed, the letters did not mention the procedure by which the application was to be determined.
On 18 January 2008 the Second Claimant sent an email to Mr Smith in which he inquired whether the application would be decided by an officer of the Council or by a Plans Panel. Mr Smith replied promptly in the following terms:—
“Need to look at it in detail – hopefully back end of next week with workload priorities at present. I have got your comments so will discuss all with my Principal Planner next week.”
On 28 January 2008 the Second Claimant emailed Mr Smith again about whether or not the decision in relation to the planning application would be made by an officer or a Panel. It is worth quoting the Second Claimant's words in full.
”Can you just tell me whether this is going to be a delegated decision or whether it is already decided that it will go to Panel if it proceeds?”
Mr Smith's response (by email dated 29 January 2008) was as follows:
“Mark – will endeavour to confirm this week.”
On 5 February 2008 Councillor Tom Leadley wrote to the Chief Planning and Development Officer of the Defendant with copies to others including Mr Smith. The letter reads:—
“Following a request from a neighbour, I ask that the above application should be decided at Plans Panel East to allow the Panel to judge challenges from a neighbour's representative to the likely advice from officers, in particular about the height and massing of the proposed building, the proposed highway access, and the loss of employment land.
Morley Town Council Planning Committee was reasonably content with the principle of the proposal, and from talking with Mr Smith I understand that there have been modifications to introduce real sandstone rather than artstone, and to have better use of the open land within the site to give more green space, so answering two of the Committee's detailed concerns.”
That letter is date stamped as received on 6 February 2008. However, the Defendant asserts that no officer with knowledge of the planning application saw the letter before the decision to grant planning permission was made on 7 February 2008.
In the afternoon of 7 February 2008 Mr Smith sent an email to the Second Claimant in which he informed him that “we have delegated decision on this application, which has been put through for approval today.”
On the same date, Mr Smith presented a document...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Warley v Wealden District Council
...light nuisance from arising." 83 An analogy is sought to be drawn with the decision of Wyn Williams J in Technoprint Plc & Anor, R (on the application of) v Leeds City Council & Anor [2010] EWHC 581 (Admin) at paragraph 45. In my view, there is no proper analogy with that case. Each case ha......
-
Administration of Planning Law
...the terms of their delegated powers (see R (Carlton-Conway) v Harrow LBC [2002] JPL 1216; R (Technoprint plc) v Leeds City Council [2010] EWHC 581 (Admin); R (Friends of Hethel) v South Norfolk DC [2011] JPL 192. It should be noted that a number of cases have considered whether the private ......