Pridmore & Ors, R (on the application of) v Salisbury District Council & Anor

Notification and certification requirements for a planning application under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 are mandatory. An application submitted without the required prior notice to an owner is invalid and should not be entertained or determined. That conclusion is distinct from the discretionary question whether a resulting permission should be quashed. Where the failure is deliberate, false certificates are submitted, the authority knows of the defects, and affected owners have lacked a proper opportunity to participate, preserving the permission may undermine the statutory scheme. The permission was therefore quashed.

The claimants sought judicial review of Salisbury District Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a dwelling at the rear of 38 Firs Road, Firsdown. The proposed development included land partly owned by the claimants. The application and amended plans were processed despite failures to give the claimants the required notice as owners, false ownership and notification certificates, and insufficient time before determination.

The claim also challenged the Council’s consideration of highway access, its guidance on tandem development, and its treatment of national planning policy. The central issue was whether the procedural defects required the planning permission to be quashed, or whether the court should exercise its discretion to leave the permission in force.

1. Application invalid. Sections 65(2) and 65(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, together with articles 6, 7 and 20 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, required prior notice to every relevant owner and certification in the prescribed form. The Council was required to refuse to entertain an application lacking those requirements. The eight-week period applied only to a valid application.
2. The applicant had failed to notify the claimants before submitting the application. The certificates were false. The Council knew of the defects yet entertained and determined the application. Article 20(5)(b) also prevented determination before 21 days had elapsed from service of the relevant notice.
3. The invalidity of the application did not itself determine whether the permission should be quashed. The court retained a discretion. Main v Swansea City Council (1984) 49 P & CR 26 did not require the court to preserve a permission where there had been deliberate non-compliance with mandatory requirements, the authority had participated in processing the defective application, and the affected owners had not received the protection intended by the statutory scheme.
4. There was a real possibility of prejudice. The amended plan raised issues concerning turning space, vehicles reversing into the road, rights over the access splay, and highway safety. The amended plan had not been referred to the Highway Authority. Those matters required proper investigation and consideration.
5. The permission was quashed on the procedural and highway-access ground alone. The challenge to the tandem-development guidance failed. Tandem development was not confined to one development per original garden; density depended on the size and character of the site and surrounding housing. The criticism of the reference to PPG3 as requiring increased density was a matter of form rather than substance in the context of the whole report.
6. The claim succeeded. The claimants were awarded their costs, subject to detailed assessment, with an interim payment of £14,000. Permission to appeal was refused.

This was a first-instance judicial review. Permission to apply was granted at the hearing, and the Council’s planning permission was quashed. Permission to appeal was refused by the High Court.