Technoprint & Anor v Leeds City Council & Anor

A planning authority acts irrationally where it reverses a refusal based on noise concerns without evidence capable of demonstrating that proposed attenuation measures will achieve the required result. A condition must contain sufficient detail to identify the works required and permit effective enforcement. A local authority may reconsider the same planning application without giving an affected person a legitimate expectation of a further full debate, provided the person is informed of the reconsideration and has a reasonable opportunity to make representations. A technical breach of delegated powers does not necessarily justify relief where the decision is otherwise lawful, but relief should not be withheld merely because the eventual result may be similar.

The claimants sought judicial review of planning permission granted by Leeds City Council to Kalon Limited for the retention of reverse jet filters at a paint manufacturing plant. The permission was granted under delegated powers after the Plans Panel had initially been minded to refuse the application because of noise concerns.

On reconsideration, the Panel relied on assurances that attenuation could reduce noise by approximately 5dB, although no detailed measures had been supplied. It delegated the matter for final approval, and permission was granted subject to a condition requiring later submission and installation of attenuation measures. The claim challenged the decision on grounds of irrationality, procedural unfairness and unlawful delegation.

1. The claim succeeded. The planning permission dated 31 October 2005 was quashed and the matter was remitted to Leeds City Council. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs of £7,490.58 within 14 days.
2. The decisive error was the absence of evidence supporting the change from an apparent intention to refuse permission on noise grounds to a decision to grant permission subject to a condition. The Panel was told that a reduction of approximately 5dB could be achieved, but had no evidence explaining how attenuation would be achieved or what measures would produce that result. The decision was therefore irrational and perverse.
3. A condition requiring attenuation measures must contain sufficient detail to identify what is to be installed and retained. A condition lacking measurements, drawings or other adequate particulars creates serious uncertainty about continued efficacy and enforcement.
4. The procedural unfairness challenge failed. The claimant had been informed that the application would be reconsidered, had access to the agenda and officer’s report, and could have attended the meeting to point out the absence of supporting details. There was no legitimate expectation that the authority would maintain its earlier position or provide a further opportunity to comment on measures that had not been proposed. BT v Gloucester City Council [2001] EWHC 1001 was distinguishable because it concerned an amendment to a planning application, whereas the authority here reconsidered the same application.
5. There had technically been a breach of the Council’s delegation arrangements because the whole decision was delegated to the Chief Planning and Development Services Officer. That breach, standing alone, would not have justified relief. The court also declined to withhold relief on the speculative possibility that the installation might be immune from enforcement under a four-year rule.