R Zurich Assurance Ltd Trading as Threadneedle Property Investments (Claimant) North Lincolnshire Council (Defendant) Simons Developments Ltd (Interested Party)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Hon Mr Justice Hickinbottom,Mr Justice Hickinbottom |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 3708 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4764/2012 |
| Date | 20 December 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 3708 (Admin)
Mr Justice Hickinbottom
Case No: CO/4764/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IN LEEDS
Leeds Combined Court,
1 Oxford Row, Leeds, LS1 3BG
Paul G Tucker QC and Anthony Gill (instructed by Nabarro LLP) for the Claimant
Vincent Fraser QC and Alan Evans (instructed by Legal Services Department, North Lincolnshire Council) for the Defendant
Christopher Katkowski QC and Graeme Keen (instructed by Gordons LLP) for the Interested Party
Hearing date: 17 December 2012
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Introduction
The Claimant ("Zurich") is the owner of the Foundry Shopping Centre, which lies within the primary shopping area in the centre of Scunthorpe, the largest town in North Lincolnshire. The shopping centre comprises 19,000 sq m of retail floorspace in 45 units.
The Interested Party (" Simons") has an option to purchase the Trent Valley Garden Centre, Doncaster Road, Gunness ("the Site"), which is about 2.5 kilometres from Scunthorpe town centre.
On 26 March 2012, the Defendant ("the Council"), which is the relevant local planning authority, granted planning permission to Simons to demolish the garden centre and its associated structures, and construct a retail park with four retail units and associated access roads, car parking, servicing area and landscaping.
In this claim, issued on 8 May 2012, Zurich challenges that decision, with the permission of His Honour Judge Gosnell sitting as a judge of this court granted on 23 July 2012.
At the substantive hearing, Zurich was represented by Paul Tucker QC and Anthony Gill, the Council by Vincent Fraser QC and Alan Evans, and Simons by Christopher Katkowski QC and Graeme Keen.
Factual Background
The Site has been a garden centre since the mid-1980s: on 17 January 1985, planning permission was granted for a change of use of the land, and to erect appropriate buildings. That permission was subject to a condition (Condition 2) that limited the goods that could be sold to a prescribed list which, in general, excluded food and clothes. However:
i) full planning permission was granted on 3 April 1986 to retain a restaurant, lounge and patio area;
ii) outline planning permission was granted on 9 August 1990 to erect buildings to create a non-food retail warehouse park (although that was never implemented, and has of course long since lapsed); and
iii) there is significant evidence that the Site has in fact been used for very wide retail use – far wider than allowed by Condition 2 – for some considerable time (e.g. the Secretary of State's decision letter of 9 August 1990 refers to the garden centre having "already some… 4,500 sq m of retail floorspace used for the sale of a wide range of goods").
On 22 August 2011, Simons made a further application for planning permission for a new retail park on the Site, initially proposing six retail outlets, but later reduced to four namely one large unit (4,645 sq m) and three smaller units. Accompanying the application was a screening opinion dated 22 July 2011 under Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 293), to the effect that a full environmental impact assessment was unnecessary. The application was validated by the Council on 31 August 2011.
Two letters of objection were lodged by planning consultants representing Zurich (Indigo Planning Limited, "Indigo"). However, on 14 December 2011, the application was considered by the Council's Planning Committee, which resolved in favour of granting it subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 planning obligation. The application was referred to the Secretary of State, who indicated that the matter would not be called-in for decision by him.
On 23 December 2011, a letter before claim was sent to the Council by an informal group of local businesses and residents opposed to the project, known as "Keep Scunthorpe Alive" ("KSA"), challenging the decision to grant permission; and further letters of objection were sent by Indigo. As a result, the Council's case officer (Mr David Wordsworth) prepared a further report for the committee which, rather than merely updating the earlier report to deal with the objections received, was a comprehensive report covering all of the ground again including the contents of the objections to which I have referred ("the Main Report") with an addendum of its own responding to two late, further letters of objection from Indigo and KSA ("the Addendum Report"). It is therefore unnecessary for me to consider the earlier report further.
On 7 March 2012, on the basis of the Main Report and the Addendum Report, the Council's Planning Committee reconsidered the application, and again resolved to grant permission subject to referral and a satisfactory Section 106 obligation, in the following terms:
"Resolved—(a) That the committee is mindful to grant permission for the development; (b) that the application be referred to the Secretary of State in accordance with statutory procedures to enable him to consider whether or not to intervene; (c) that in the event of the Secretary of State deciding not to intervene, the Head of Development Management be authorised to grant permission subject to the completion of a formal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 providing for off-site highway improvements, Scunthorpe town centre protection, protected species translocation and maintenance and a contribution towards improving the existing footpaths in the vicinity of the site, and to the conditions contained in the report, and (c) [sic] that if the obligation is not completed by 7 June 2012, the Head of Development Management be authorised to refuse the application on the grounds of the adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of Scunthorpe town centre, adverse impact upon highway safety and levels of congestion within the locality, adverse impact upon protected species and their habitat, and non-compliance with Policy EC16 of PPS 4, policies T2 and T6 of the North Lincolnshire Local Plan, and policies C14, C25 and CS17 of the North Lincolnshire Core Strategy."
(The voting being equal on the above matter, … the chairman used his second and casting vote in favour of the motion)."
That resolution very much followed the wording of the officer's formal recommendation at pages 63–4 of the Main Report.
The Secretary of State did not call-in the decision. A Section 106 agreement was completed, and full planning permission granted, on 26 March 2012.
It was a condition of the grant of planning permission (Condition 38) that the first tenant of the large unit should be a retail company within the Marks and Spencer plc group of companies ("Marks & Spencer"). Marks & Spencer had had a 949 sq m shop in High Street, Scunthorpe from 1931 to early 2011 when it closed, commercial non-viability being given as the reason for closure.
It is that grant of planning permission on 26 March 2012 that Zurich now challenges.
Legal Principles
This case hinges largely upon criticisms of the officer's Main and Addendum Reports to the Council's Planning Committee, seen in the light of national and local planning policy. The relevant legal principles relating to such reports and policy were agreed by the parties, and are uncontroversial.
Each local planning authority delegates its planning functions to a planning committee, which acts on the basis of information provided by case officers in the form of a report. Such a report usually also includes a recommendation as to how the application should be dealt with. With regard to such reports:
i) In the absence of contrary evidence, it is a reasonable inference that members of the planning committee follow the reasoning of the report, particularly where a recommendation is adopted.
ii) When challenged, such reports are not to be subjected to the same exegesis that might be appropriate for the interpretation of a statute: what is required is a fair reading of the report as a whole. Consequently:
"[A]n application for judicial review based on criticisms of the planning officer's report will not normally begin to merit consideration unless the overall effect of the report significantly misleads the committee about material matters which thereafter are left uncorrected at the meeting of the planning committee before the relevant decision is taken" ( Oxton Farms, Samuel Smiths Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Selby District Council (18 April 1997) 1997 WL 1106106, per Judge LJ as he then was).
iii) In construing reports, it has to be borne in mind that they are addressed to a "knowledgeable readership", including council members "who, by virtue of that membership, may be expected to have a substantial local and background knowledge" ( R v Mendip District Council ex parte Fabre (2000) 80 P & CR 500, per Sullivan J as he then was). That background knowledge includes "a working knowledge of the statutory test" for determination of a planning application ( Oxton Farms, per Pill LJ).
The principles relevant to the proper approach to national and local planning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Midcounties Co-operative Ltd v Forest of Dean District Council Trilogy Developments Ltd (Interested Party)
...to such reports recently in R (Zurich Assurance Limited trading as Threadneedle Property Investments) v North Lincolnshire Council [2012] EWHC 3708 (Admin) at [15], where I summarised the relevant principles as follows: "(i) In the absence of contrary evidence, it is a reasonable inference ......
-
R Grand Central Sound Studios Ltd v Marlborough House Ltd (Interested Party)
...principles is set out in R (Zurich Assurance Limited (trading as Threadneedle Property Investments)) v North Lincolnshire Council [2012] EWHC 3708 (Admin) and was expanded somewhat by Holgate J in R (Luton Borough Council) v Central Bedfordshire Council [2014] EWHC 4325 (Admin) at [91] to [......
-
R Salford Estates (NO 2) Ltd v Durham County Council Dalton Park Ltd (Interested Party)
...argument of Mr Tucker. It is to be found in the recent case of R (Zurich Assurance Ltd) v North Lincolnshire Council & Ors [2012] EWHC 3708 (Admin) where Hickinbottom J had to consider another shopping development case, that time in Scunthorpe. EC17.1 fell for analysis, and I particularly r......
-
Warners Retail (Moreton) Ltd v Cotswold District Council Minton Health Care Ltd & Glamar Leisure Ltd and Another (Interested Parties)
...summarised recently by Hickinbottom J in R (Zurich Assurance Ltd t/a Threadneedle Property Investments) v North Lincolnshire Council [2012] EWHC 3708 (Admin) in the following terms: "15. Each local planning authority delegates its planning functions to a planning committee, which acts on th......
-
Appeals and Review of Planning Decisions
...he then was, in R. (on the application of Zurich Assurance Ltd, t/a Threadneedles Property Investments) v North Lincolnshire Council [2012] EWHC 3708 (Admin) at [15]). ♦ The principles are not complicated. Planning officers’ reports to committee are not to be read with undue rigour, but wit......