Health & Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council & Anor

The court held that the local planning authority failed to comply with statutory consultation and disclosure requirements when granting planning permission for student accommodation near an existing LPG installation. Key legal principles identified were the obligation to consult the Health and Safety Executive under the amended GDPO / PADHI+ procedure, the need to give a summary of reasons and relevant development plan policies under Article 22(1) of the GDPO (and Circular DETR 04/2000), and the court’s discretion to refuse relief where there has been undue delay under section 31(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. The judge found material procedural defects (failure to notify HSE when minded to grant, inaccurate PADHI+ inputs, and breach of Article 22(1)) but refused to quash the permission or order revocation/modification because of significant delay, the completion of three blocks, the likely hardship to the private developer and the limits on the court’s power to make final orders affecting private third parties.

Background and parties:

• The claimant, the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), sought judicial review of Wolverhampton City Council’s grant of planning permission (4 August 2008) for four blocks of student accommodation near a long-standing LPG facility. The interested party was the developer (Victoria Hall Limited). Three of the four blocks had been built before proceedings were issued.

Nature of the application and procedural posture:

• The claimant initially sought quashing of the permission and, when that became impracticable, sought declarations, injunctions to prevent occupation and construction of the remaining block and orders to revoke or modify the permission. The matter proceeded on a rolled-up hearing (permission and substantive hearing together).

Issues framed by the court:

1. Whether the Council lawfully consulted and notified the HSE under the GDPO/PADHI+ regime and relevant Circular guidance.
2. Whether the notice of decision complied with Article 22(1) of the GDPO by summarising reasons and relevant development plan policies.
3. Whether the Council’s decision was irrational or perverse for failure to have regard to material considerations.
4. Whether delay or prejudice (section 31(6) Supreme Court Act 1981) precluded relief such as quashing, injunctions or revocation/modification under section 97 TCPA 1990.
5. Whether the court could grant injunctive relief affecting a private developer or other third parties not joined to the claim.

Court’s reasoning and outcome:

• The council had failed to notify the HSE properly when it was minded to grant permission and had made errors in entering details into PADHI+ so the HSE could not fully investigate the proposal; these failures were material and could have justified quashing the permission.
• There was also a breach of Article 22(1) because the decision notice did not summarise the reasons and relevant policies (notably policy EP10), contrary to the requirements identified in R(Tratt) v Horsham DC and Circular DETR 04/2000.
• Nevertheless, the HSE delayed investigating and acting after learning of the grant; by the time proceedings were issued the developer had completed substantial works. Applying section 31(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and authorities on delay, the court concluded that quashing or orders revoking/modifying permission would cause substantial hardship and prejudice to the innocent developer and be detrimental to good administration.
• The court also held it lacked power in this judicial review claim to make final injunctions directly against the private developer or Carvers (the LPG operator) where they were not parties or joined in the proceedings.
• Accordingly the court refused quashing, refused injunctive relief against the developer, refused to require reconsideration under section 97 TCPA 1990, but granted declarations that the Council had acted unlawfully in its failures and ordered that the Council provide a proper summary of reasons and relevant policies (including EP10) to be placed on the register.

Contextual comment: the judge emphasised that prompt challenge is critical in planning cases and remarked on the excessive volume of material before the court.

Allowed in part. The court found material procedural and disclosure defects: the Council failed to notify the HSE adequately under the GDPO/PADHI+ regime and breached Article 22(1) by not giving a proper summary of reasons and relevant policies (including EP10). Despite those flaws, the main remedies sought (quashing the permission, revocation or modification under section 97 TCPA 1990, and injunctions preventing occupation or construction) were refused because of the claimant’s undue delay, the substantial completion of works, likely hardship to the innocent developer and limits on the court’s power to make final orders affecting private third parties. The court granted declarations recording the unlawful failures and ordered the Council to correct the register by inserting a proper summary of reasons and policies.