Telford Trustee No.1 Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Telford and Wrekin Council

A local planning authority granting planning permission subject to conditions must give a summary of its reasons, rather than full reasons or reasons for rejecting each objection. Adequacy depends on the circumstances. A brief summary may suffice where members follow an officer’s recommendation and adopt the report’s reasoning.

The reasons need not explain every step by which compliance with planning policy was established. The decision notice may be read with the officer’s report and the surrounding decision-making material. A consideration is material only if, on the information then available, it is capable of affecting the planning decision.

The claimant Trustees owned most of the land in Telford town centre. The Council granted Asda planning permission for a new foodstore on the Council’s Civic Offices site. The Trustees challenged the permission because the stated reasons did not explain how the proposal satisfied the sequential and retail-impact policies in PPS4. They also alleged that the planning committee had overlooked compensation potentially payable for interference with restrictive covenants under section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Beatson J refused permission to seek judicial review: [2010] EWHC 3470 (Admin). Sullivan LJ subsequently granted permission on specified grounds under CPR 52.15 and directed that the substantive claim be retained in the Court of Appeal. The central issues were whether the summary reasons complied with article 22(1)(b)(i) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 and whether the compensation issue was a material planning consideration.

1. The claim for judicial review was dismissed unanimously. The requirement under article 22(1)(b)(i) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 was to provide a summary of the reasons for granting permission. It did not require full reasons, a summary of the reasons for rejecting an objector’s representations, or reasons for the underlying reasons.
2. The planning committee followed the officers’ recommendation and adopted the reasons contained in their report. Nothing indicated that members had departed from the report’s reasoning. In those circumstances, the brief statement that the proposal had been assessed as complying with PPS4 was adequate. That statement necessarily conveyed the committee’s acceptance that the sequential approach and impact-assessment requirements in policies EC14–EC17 had been met.
3. The decision notice was properly considered in its surrounding context. The officers’ material dealt at length with the sequentially preferable site, its availability and viability, the likely future use of Asda’s existing store, and the proposal’s impact on the town centre. If the report disclosed a legal error, the Trustees could have mounted a substantive challenge. Article 22 did not require the Council to reproduce that underlying analysis in its summary reasons merely to facilitate such a challenge.
4. The restrictive covenants and possible compensation under section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 did not establish a failure to consider a material matter. Compensation could have been material only if its amount might prevent or delay the Council’s move and the proposed development. At the decision date, the Council had advice placing the total compensation near £250,000, a sum incapable of producing that effect. The Trustees’ later valuation exceeding £40 million did not retrospectively make the issue material.
5. There was nothing inherently objectionable in the Council maintaining a separation arrangement between its property and planning functions to prevent improper influence or an appearance of bias. Whether disclosure would have been required had the Council anticipated compensation near £40 million was hypothetical and was left undecided.

Richards LJ gave the judgment. Hughes and Ward LJJ agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission having been granted and the substantive claim retained in this court, the court dismissed the judicial review claim: [2011] EWCA Civ 896.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: Beatson J refused permission to apply for judicial review: [2010] EWHC 3470 (Admin).
3. Permission stage: Sullivan LJ granted permission under rule 52.15 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 on specified grounds and ordered the substantive claim to be heard in the Court of Appeal.