Weir & Ors, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Camden

In a planning decision, the identity and expertise of an objector may materially affect the weight given to the objection. A planning committee must have regard to a material objection, including one made by the relevant highway authority, where that objection may influence the assessment of amenity, highway safety or the adequacy of proposed mitigation. A failure to consider the objection will normally require the decision to be quashed if it may have affected the result. Relief may be refused only where the court is satisfied that the outcome would necessarily have been the same.

The claimants challenged Camden’s grant of planning permission for a substantial restaurant in Shelton Street, which formed the boundary between Camden and Westminster. Westminster was an obligatory consultee and submitted an objection concerning residential amenity, pedestrian safety and traffic obstruction, but the objection was not placed before Camden’s Development Control Sub-Committee.

The committee considered similar concerns raised by local objectors and approved the application subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement. The central issue was whether the failure to place Westminster’s objection before the committee was a material error which invalidated the permission.

1. The claim succeeded. The planning permission was quashed. Camden was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
2. The source of a planning objection may affect the weight that the decision-maker attaches to it. An objection made by a highway authority may carry greater weight because of the authority’s relevant expertise and responsibilities. The committee might therefore have treated the existing objections as more significant had it known that Westminster supported them.
3. It was insufficient that the officer’s report addressed the substance of concerns raised by other objectors. Westminster’s objection was itself a material consideration, and the committee was wrongly led to believe that Westminster had not objected.
4. The boundary between the two planning authorities made liaison particularly important. Westminster’s objection also referred to a related development and pedestrian safety issues. The committee would reasonably have expected information about inquiries and discussions with Westminster before deciding whether Camden’s proposed conditions and highway improvements were adequate.
5. Where a planning decision contains a material error, it will normally be quashed if the defect may have affected the result. The court will withhold relief only where satisfied that the result would have been the same despite the error. Here, the committee might have attached greater weight to the objections, sought further particulars, or adjourned for further inquiries. The court could not be satisfied that the outcome would necessarily have been unchanged.
6. The court rejected the suggestion that the case raised a novel rule that failure to consider any objection is automatically material. Materiality depends on the circumstances.

First-instance judicial review decision. The court granted leave for the interested party to consider an appeal for five weeks and adjourned the outstanding permission application; no appellate decision is stated in the judgment.