Aldergate Projects Ltd, R (on the application of) v Nottinghamshire County Council

A planning authority must properly consider material effects of a proposed development on adjoining development and must give its committee sufficient information to decide whether a suitable planning condition is required. An outline permission and incomplete neighbouring proposals do not, without more, justify disregarding that issue. A screening opinion required by the environmental impact assessment regulations must be adopted in writing; informal consideration or an internal note is insufficient. Unlawfulness will normally lead to quashing, unless the defendant establishes that relief should be withheld. Under Article 22 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, a decision notice must contain a summary of relevant development-plan policies, not merely a list.

The claimant owned land adjoining a proposed bus station development in Mansfield. It challenged the defendant county council’s grant of planning permission to itself, alleging failures in the officer’s report, environmental impact assessment procedures and the reasons given under Article 22 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

The claimant supported the bus station in principle but argued that the development might prevent vehicular access from Station Road to its adjoining regeneration site. The central issues were whether the committee had been properly informed about that concern and whether the council had complied with the written screening-opinion requirements under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

1. Planning condition and material considerations. The officer’s report failed to give the committee the information necessary to consider whether a carefully drafted, time-limited condition could preserve the possibility of access from Station Road. The report wrongly conveyed that the proposed development would not prejudice the adjoining site, although that depended on meaningful discussion and possible design adjustments. The committee was therefore misled and the decision was unlawful on classic Wednesbury principles.
2. Environmental impact assessment. The development fell within Schedule 2, paragraph 10(b), because the stated application site exceeded 0.5 hectare. Regulation 7 deemed a screening-opinion request to have been made where the application was a relevant Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 application without an environmental statement. Regulation 5(4) required the authority to adopt the opinion within the prescribed period. An internal memorandum and an informal consideration did not satisfy the requirement for a written screening opinion. The council’s later attempt to rely on a smaller measured area was also unsustainable because the works to Station Road formed part of the development.
3. Relief. The court had a discretion to refuse relief where the breach caused no detriment, but the defendant bore the burden of establishing that this was an appropriate case for withholding relief. Normally, unlawfulness in the process leading to planning permission results in quashing. The circumstances did not justify refusing relief.
4. Reasons and policies. Article 22 treated the provision of reasons as part of the decision-making process. The court considered the reasons issue borderline, but held that the requirement for a summary of relevant policies was breached because the notice supplied only a list and did not indicate what the policies addressed. This was not determinative because the permission was quashed on the other grounds.

The planning permission was quashed. The council was required to reconsider the application, including whether an appropriate condition should be imposed and, if so, to give reasons.