Stamford Chamber of Trading, R (on the application of) v South Kesteven District Council

A planning permission may be quashed where the decision-maker was materially misled by an officer’s report on a central planning issue. The report must present the relevant evidence accurately and intelligibly, including the correct quantitative basis for assessing retail impact. A planning officer must also implement the planning committee’s resolution as made. If the officer considers that an approved condition cannot properly be imposed, the matter must return to the committee for reconsideration. Conditions must address the planning concerns identified by the committee and be sufficiently clear and enforceable.

The claimants challenged planning permission granted by South Kesteven District Council to Morrison Supermarkets plc for a non-food retail and leisure development at Uffington Road, Stamford.

The principal grounds were that the officer’s report misstated the available capacity for non-bulky comparison-goods floorspace, contained incomprehensible or erroneous reasoning, failed properly to address public transport, and did not give effect to the committee’s resolution concerning planning conditions.

1. Officer’s report. The report materially misled the committee by relying on figures derived from an outdated study and by treating an increase in market share as affecting non-bulky comparison-goods capacity, although the relevant market share for those goods remained constant. The correct capacity figure was 1,929 sq m. The report’s figure of 2,381 sq m therefore presented a false picture and improperly supported the proposed floorspace.
2. The committee needed full and accurate information to decide the appropriate limit. The fact that supporting material was available in appendices did not cure the misleading presentation in the officer’s report.
3. Implementation of the resolution. The committee had resolved that a condition, or its equivalent, should restrict non-bulky comparison-goods floorspace. The permission did not impose an equivalent restriction and permitted a greater amount than the figure regarded by the council’s consultants as appropriate. The officer and chairman thereby exceeded the authority conferred by the resolution.
4. If it was considered impracticable to impose the approved condition, the matter should have been referred back to the committee so that it could decide whether to alter its resolution.
5. Transport condition. The material before the committee did not establish an adequate public transport service, particularly at weekends. Condition 17, requiring later travel plans and requiring occupiers to secure compliance, was difficult to enforce and did not properly meet the stated concern.
6. The errors in the officer’s approach and the failure to implement the committee’s resolution were material. The claim was allowed and the planning permission was quashed. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.