Hampson, R (on the application of) v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council & Anor

In judicial review of a planning decision, a failure to explain the full effect of relevant development-plan policies may amount to a failure to take account of a material consideration. Relief may nevertheless be refused where the court is satisfied that proper consideration would inevitably have produced the same result. The decision-maker must consider the development plan as a whole, while giving proper attention to policies that create specific hurdles to development. In assessing whether linked developments may be treated as a composite scheme, financial, functional, ownership and physical relationships are relevant matters of fact and degree. A court may also decline relief where delay or an inadequate consideration of national guidance would not materially affect the outcome.

The claimant sought judicial review of planning permissions granted by Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council for five interrelated developments forming the Leigh Sports Village scheme. He challenged the loss of informal open space and sports pitches, the treatment of several developments as enabling development, and the adequacy of the officers’ reports and reasons.

The claim was filed within three months of the formal permissions but nearly three months after their grant. The court considered delay, the interpretation of development-plan policies L1C and L1D, national guidance in PPG17, the proposed replacement sports pitches, the duty to give reasons, and whether the developments could properly be treated as one composite package.

1. Delay. The claim was within the three-month period in CPR 54.5(1). Although promptness remained a separate requirement, the court exercised caution in applying it. The claimant’s preparation for Legal Services Commission funding and the absence of demonstrated serious prejudice meant that the claim should not be refused for delay.
2. Open space. Policies L1C and L1D were relevant development-plan policies. Their full effect was not conveyed to the planning committee: they created a hurdle to development involving loss of open space, rather than merely controlling development quality. The deficiency amounted to a failure to take a material consideration into account. It did not, however, justify quashing the permissions. The committee had considered the recreational and visual effects, the proposed improvements to formal facilities, and the wider regeneration benefits. There was no real possibility that fuller consideration would have changed the result.
3. PPG17 and sports pitches. Any failure to draw attention expressly to the surplus-land assessment in paragraph 10 of PPG17 was immaterial. The committee had considered the loss of open space. The requirement for alternative sports provision in an appropriate location encompassed accessibility, and the evidence disclosed no material accessibility problem with the Howe Bridge site.
4. Reasons. The reasons ground did not arise independently because the principal defect concerned the committee’s incomplete understanding of the policies. In any event, any inadequacy in reasons was immaterial because the outcome would inevitably have been the same.
5. Enabling development. The council was entitled to treat the applications as a composite development and to consider the contribution of the office, retail and residential elements to the viability and benefits of the Leigh Sports Village. Physical proximity was a relevant consideration, but the financial, functional and ownership links were sufficient, and the distances involved did not make the approach unreasonable.
6. Permission was granted on grounds 1, 3 and 4, refused on ground 2, and the substantive claim was dismissed. The defendant was awarded its costs. No separate costs order was made for the interested party.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The judgment does not state any subsequent appellate decision.