Street v Cardiff County Council

In planning judicial review, the court examines whether the local planning authority correctly identified and interpreted the development plan and material considerations. A policy interpretation is unlawful only where the words cannot properly bear the meaning adopted, applying the Wednesbury standard. An officer’s report must be read as a whole and in its decision-making context. Imperfect drafting does not invalidate a decision unless the report significantly misleads the committee about a material matter which remains uncorrected. A declaration is inappropriate where the relevant policy framework was in fact addressed and understood.

The claimant sought permission to challenge Cardiff County Council’s grant of planning permission for a high-flyer balloon and associated development in Britannia Park, Cardiff Bay. He alleged errors concerning the area of open space, the 25 per cent limitation in an earlier planning permission, the effect of mooring lines, the interpretation of the council’s open-space policy, and the omission of the policy framework from the permission itself.

Permission had initially been considered on paper by Hickinbottom J, who adjourned the matter for an oral hearing so that arguable issues could be clarified. The central questions were whether the committee had misunderstood material planning considerations or been materially misled by the officer’s report, and whether any declaration should be granted.

1. Planning framework. Under Town and Country Planning Act 1980, section 70, and Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, section 38(6), the authority had to determine the application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. It had to identify and interpret relevant policies and material considerations correctly, and weigh the latter in the balance.
2. Policy interpretation. Where the meaning of a planning policy is disputed, its legal meaning is for the court. The authority acts unlawfully if it gives the policy a meaning which its words cannot properly bear. The applicable control was Wednesbury unreasonableness.
3. Officer’s report. The report was to be read fairly and as a whole, bearing in mind that it addressed councillors applying their own policies and possessing local knowledge. It was not to be construed like a statute. Judicial review would not normally be justified unless the overall effect of the report significantly misled the committee about a material matter which was left uncorrected before the decision.
4. The committee was entitled to rely on the measurements supplied by the landowner and to conclude that the 25 per cent limitation had not been exceeded. The report, late representations, site visit and oral representations showed that the relevant land, measurements and adverse-weather arrangements had been considered. The interpretation of the open-space policy was reasonably open to the committee.
5. Although the permission did not itself set out the policy framework, that framework appeared in the report and was understood by the objectors and committee. A declaration, on the model of the declaration discussed in Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton CC and Victoria Falls Ltd [2009] EWHC 2688 (Admin), was therefore inappropriate.
6. Permission to continue the judicial review proceedings was refused. The claimant was ordered to pay limited costs of £1,369.

1. Administrative Court: Hickinbottom J considered the application for permission on paper on 13 August 2009. He adjourned the protective costs order application for an oral hearing and transferred the matter to the Administrative Court in Wales.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): HHJ Jarman QC refused permission to continue the judicial review proceedings and ordered the claimant to pay limited costs.