Ling (Bridlington) Ltd. & Ors, R (on the application of) v East Riding of Yorkshire Council

A notice granting planning permission subject to conditions need provide only a summary of the reasons for the grant. It need not give the full reasons required for a refusal or explain why every objection was rejected. Adequacy depends on the circumstances. A short statement may suffice where members follow a reasoned officer recommendation, but a fuller explanation may be required where they depart from it.

Planning conditions and interpretations of development plan policy are matters of planning judgment. The court will intervene only where the judgment or interpretation falls outside the lawful range. A policy exception for a use subsidiary to a larger development may apply whether that larger development already exists or is proposed, unless the policy provides otherwise.

The claimants, who operated leisure businesses and owned nearby flats, sought judicial review of two planning permissions and a resolution to grant a third permission on Bridlington seafront. The decisions concerned a 34-metre observation wheel, an extension to a fun park, and a building containing an amusement arcade and restaurant with a takeaway element.

The challenges concerned allegedly ineffective or insufficient planning conditions, an asserted factual error in an officer’s report, the adequacy of the reasons for granting permission, and the interpretation of local policies restricting amusement arcades and hot-food takeaways. The central questions were whether the authority had lawfully exercised its planning judgment and whether its decision notices complied with article 22(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

1. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The conditions attached to the observation-wheel permission were matters of degree and planning judgment. Although the privacy condition had limited practical effect, it was intended to lessen rather than eliminate the potential loss of privacy. The authority was entitled to conclude that lighting and noise could be controlled through schemes approved before development commenced.

2. The fun-park report did not materially mislead members about public use of the sloping site. Members had inspected it and could assess both its practical amenity value and its visual contribution. Conditions requiring prior approval of individual rides or stalls and ordinarily limiting structures to 11 metres provided adequate environmental control. The separate permission for the observation wheel did not make the height restriction ineffective.

3. Article 22(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 requires a summary of the reasons for granting permission subject to conditions. This differs significantly from the requirement to state clearly and precisely the full reasons for refusing permission. A grant notice need not summarise why objections were rejected or give reasons for its reasons. Adequacy depends on the circumstances. A fuller statement will ordinarily be appropriate where members reject an officer’s recommendation, while a short summary may suffice where they adopt it.

4. The reasons given for the wheel and fun-park permissions were adequate. They reflected the conclusions in the officer reports, which the members substantially adopted. The omitted reference to policy BRID 15 was immaterial because the identified policies addressed the same concern about the character of the surrounding area. Planning authorities should nevertheless avoid using a standard formula without considering the individual case.

5. The local policies concerning amusement arcades and hot-food takeaways were reasonably interpreted. Their exceptions did not confine subsidiary uses to larger developments proposed for the future. A use could be subsidiary to an existing larger tourism or recreational development. Common ownership and control could assist in identifying the relevant larger development.

6. Although proof of prejudice was not required to establish unlawfulness in judicial review, prejudice remained relevant to remedial discretion. Had the reasons been inadequate, the court would still have refused to quash the permissions because the officer reports disclosed the reasons and the claimants had suffered no substantial prejudice.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Collins J granted permission to apply for judicial review on 3 April 2006 and reserved costs. Following the substantive hearing, Sir Michael Harrison dismissed the claim and ordered the claimants to pay the council’s costs, subject to detailed assessment. He refused the interested party a second set of costs and left any application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.