The Midcounties Co-Operative Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Forest of Dean District Council

Under article 22 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, a notice granting planning permission must contain a summary of the reasons for the grant and a summary of the relevant development-plan policies. A bare assertion that the proposal complies with policy, or a list of policies without indicating their relevance, is insufficient. The reasons must address the principal issues considered, including material objections where appropriate. Background material such as an officer’s report cannot cure inadequate reasons in the decision notice. A failure to address properly a statutory consultee’s material concerns may also invalidate the permission.

The claimant challenged three planning permissions granted by the defendant local planning authority. Two permissions authorised a retail development and the relocation of a rugby club; the third varied a floodlighting condition under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The defendant and most interested parties consented to the permissions being quashed because the notices failed to comply with article 22 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. The remaining interested party contested the claim. The claimant also alleged failures concerning development-plan policies, Sport England’s consultation, planning obligations and other material considerations.

1. Article 22 reasons. The permissions were invalid because their notices did not provide the required summaries of reasons and relevant policies. The statutory purpose is to enable interested persons, including objectors and applicants, to understand the principal considerations and assess whether a challenge may exist. The obligation applies to summary reasons as well as full reasons: the main issues considered must be addressed in summary form (paras [22]-[30]).
2. A statement that the development complied with listed policies was inadequate. Article 22 required a summary of the policies, not merely their enumeration. The notice should indicate what each material policy dealt with insofar as relevant. An officer’s report or the claimant’s knowledge of the background could not remedy defective reasons (paras [25]-[29]).
3. The court disagreed with the suggestion in R(Ling (Bridlington) Ltd) v East Riding of Yorkshire [2006] EWHC 1604 (Admin) that the reasons for rejecting objections were outside the required summary. Where an objection raises a principal issue, the reasons for rejecting it are also reasons for granting permission (paras [26]-[29]).
4. The Rugby Club permission was additionally defective because the Council failed properly to address Sport England’s outstanding concerns, including accessibility of the replacement site, and the section 106 obligation did not clearly secure all necessary replacement facilities. The committee had not been given full information about those concerns (paras [31]-[32]).
5. Relief should not be withheld. Proper reconsideration could produce a different result, particularly given the need to assess retention of the existing recreational ground, adequate compensatory provision secured by enforceable obligation, and whether an alternative site outside open countryside was available (para [33]).
6. All three planning permissions were quashed. The court declined to determine the remaining grounds (paras [34]-[35]).