Park Pharmacy Trust, R (on the application of) v Plymouth City Council & Anor

A planning permission will not ordinarily be quashed for an innocent misdescription of the applicant where the true applicants are identifiable, no one is misled or prejudiced, and the error does not affect the planning merits. Apparent bias is assessed by considering all relevant circumstances and asking whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. A planning officer’s report need not record every internal difference of professional opinion. Judicial review is justified only where the report significantly misleads the committee on a material matter. In a conservation area, the statutory requirement is to preserve or enhance its character or appearance; either outcome is sufficient. The adequacy of reasons depends on the circumstances and may be assessed alongside the officer’s report.

The claimant sought judicial review of planning permission granted by Plymouth City Council for residential development involving a garage site and part of the garden of Thorn Park Lodge, occupied by the claimant as its headquarters and community medicinal garden. Six grounds were advanced, concerning the identity of the applicant, apparent bias or predetermination, conservation-area policy and statutory duties, material considerations, the treatment of an earlier refusal, and the adequacy of the reasons.

The central questions were whether any procedural errors or defects in the decision-making process rendered the permission unlawful or justified a quashing order.

1. Outcome. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment unless agreed.
2. The application was not a nullity because the agent had innocently misdescribed the two corporate applicants. The true applicants were identifiable, the agent was authorised, no person was misled or prejudiced, and the error did not affect consideration of the planning merits. The court applied the approach that the consequences of procedural non-compliance must be assessed in the concrete circumstances, including its effect on other parties and the public.
3. The allegation of apparent bias or predetermination had no evidential foundation. The relevant test required the court first to ascertain all circumstances bearing on the allegation and then to ask whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The evidence showed an adequate separation between asset-management and development-control functions, genuine professional disagreement among officers, and an open-minded committee process.
4. Policy AEV27 did not prohibit every subdivision of a curtilage. It required consideration of whether the subdivision would produce a materially harmful change in the density or form of development. The officer’s report addressed the effect on the conservation area, the Lodge and its retained garden. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 did not need to be cited expressly where the applicable conservation-area test was conveyed. The report stated the test too highly by referring to preserving and enhancing the area, since preserving or enhancing its character or appearance was sufficient, but the error made no difference.
5. A planning report is not required to record every difference of professional opinion within the planning department. The relevant question was whether its overall effect significantly misled the committee about a material matter. The report fairly addressed the community facility, trees, garden, conservation area, possible B2 fallback use and the land’s planning-policy status. Legal constraints on the land’s ownership or use were matters for another process and did not determine the planning merits.
6. The summary reasons complied with Article 22 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. They identified the principal planning considerations, especially the conservation area. Even if the summary had been inadequate, the officer’s report resolved any genuine uncertainty and the court would not have exercised its discretion to quash the permission on that ground alone.