Guiney, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Greenwich & Ors

For a major planning application, a local planning authority must publicise the application in accordance with the statutory scheme and must provide affected residents with a real opportunity to make representations. Although the authority may generally choose between a site notice and individual notification, the adequacy of the chosen method must be assessed in the circumstances. The authority cannot delegate its statutory consultation duty to a developer or residents’ association.

Where consultation was unlawful but substantial delay and third-party reliance make quashing the planning permission inappropriate, the court may grant declaratory relief. A complex planning permission is ordinarily an interdependent package, with little scope for severing an objectionable feature while preserving the remainder.

The claimant sought judicial review of a planning permission granted by the London Borough of Greenwich for the demolition of existing flats and construction of 60 dwellings, including flats on an area used by local residents as recreational space.

The grounds concerned inadequate consultation, errors in the planning officer’s report and failure to consider relevant planning policies. The application was brought about thirteen months after the permission was granted. By then, construction had substantially progressed and the interested parties had incurred significant expenditure in reliance on the permission. The central issues were whether consultation had been lawful, whether the permission should be quashed or severed, and what relief and costs should follow.

1. Consultation. Article 8 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 permitted publicity for a major development by site display or service on an adjoining owner or occupier, together with local advertisement. Greenwich’s admitted failure to advertise locally was immaterial on the facts. However, the Council’s treatment of the claimant as an adjoining resident was unclear and the committee was told that adjoining properties had been consulted when the claimant and nearby residents had not received letters.
2. The site notice was placed where it would not normally have been seen by the claimant. The developer’s consultation was responsible and appropriate, but did not alert the claimant to the direct effect of the proposal on his home. The Council could not delegate its statutory duty through the developer or residents’ association. Taking the matters together, there had been an unlawful failure to consult and the claimant had been denied a substantial opportunity to make relevant representations.
3. Planning considerations. The planning officer’s report did not need to spell out every consideration in detail. It was addressed to councillors familiar with the area and the relevant plans. The issues were fairly presented, and there had been no failure to take account of relevant planning policies. Those grounds therefore failed.
4. Relief. The delay and the extensive reliance by the interested parties created overwhelming prejudice against quashing the permission. Following Kent County Council v Kingsway Investments, [1971] AC 72, the permission was an interdependent package. Its complex features could not rationally be severed so as to remove the development affecting the recreational area while preserving the remainder. The court therefore refused a quashing order.
5. A declaration was appropriate. It recognised the Council’s failure without affecting the validity of the permission or the interested parties’ works. The claimant received 75 per cent of his costs. An issue-based assessment was rejected as impractical. Permission to appeal was refused, subject to the claimant’s right to apply to the Court of Appeal.