Tilly, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Tower Hamlets

Permission to pursue a planning judicial review should be refused where the alleged errors are not identified clearly enough for the public authority to answer them intelligibly, and where no arguable breach of planning law is shown. Planning permission primarily concerns land-use matters such as visual impact and employment. Public-health risks from radiation are principally for the Health and Safety Executive and other appropriate regulators. Alleged breaches of telecommunications or health-and-safety requirements therefore do not, without more, establish that planning permission is invalid. A planning authority is required to give reasons for refusing permission, but not generally for granting it.

The applicant challenged planning permission for rooftop installations described as satellite dishes. She was concerned about radiation and alleged inaccurate information, inadequate disclosure, defective publicity, errors concerning permitted development rights, failures to enforce legislation and breaches of statutory and human-rights duties. Ouseley J refused permission to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought permission to appeal, contending that the documentary evidence disclosed serious legal and procedural errors. The central issues were whether her complaints were sufficiently clear and whether they disclosed an arguable basis for reviewing the grant of planning permission.

Decision

Lord Justice Schiemann, sitting alone, refused permission to appeal.

1. Clarity of the case. The litigation process depends on identifying clearly what is alleged against whom. The applicant’s documents contained numerous complaints across several subject areas but did not present a coherent case capable of being answered intelligibly by the potential respondents. They therefore failed to comply with the procedural requirements intended to enable litigation to proceed swiftly and clearly.
2. Planning and public health. The grant of planning permission was primarily concerned with planning considerations, including visual impact and employment, rather than public-health questions concerning radiation. Planning policy guideline No 8 treated radiation safety as a matter for the Health and Safety Executive. Scientific disagreement about acceptable radiation levels did not, on the material before the court, go to the validity of the planning permission.
3. Regulatory allocation. Any breach of the Telecommunications Act was a matter for the appropriate enforcement authorities, not the planning authority. Alleged dangers to public health likewise had to be pursued through the procedures of the Health and Safety Executive and related bodies. These matters did not themselves establish an arguable planning-law challenge.
4. Reasons and arguability. The court stated that planning authorities were required to give reasons for refusing permission, but were not generally required to give reasons for granting it. No clearly identified breach of planning law or other ground supplied a realistic basis for judicial review, and nothing showed that Ouseley J had approached the matter wrongly. The application was therefore refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division)—permission to appeal from the refusal of judicial-review permission was refused.
2. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court—Ouseley J refused permission to apply for judicial review of the planning authority’s grant of planning permission.