Bermondsey Village Action Group (Bvag), R (on the application of) v London Borough of Southwark & Ors

An environmental statement need not contain full information about every environmental impact. Serious deficiencies are exceptional; the question is whether the document can reasonably be described as an environmental statement, having regard to the consultation and decision-making process.

A failure to describe alternatives is distinct from a failure to take environmental effects into account. Listed building consent need not be referred to the Secretary of State where it forms part of a wider planning scheme considered by the local planning authority. A challenge based on a misleading planning officer’s report requires material information which significantly misleads the committee and could affect the decision. A mayoral power to intervene in a planning application is not exercised lightly or routinely.

The applicant, acting as representative claimant for Bermondsey Village Action Group, challenged permissions and consents granted by the London Borough of Southwark for the redevelopment of London Bridge Station. He also challenged the Mayor of London’s decision not to intervene and determine the applications himself.

Collins J refused permission on the papers. On renewal, Wilkie J allowed amendment of the grounds but refused permission to apply for judicial review: [2012] EWHC 2653 (Admin). The applicant renewed the matter in the Court of Appeal. The four grounds concerned the environmental statement, referral of listed building consent, alleged misleading information about retail space, and the Mayor’s decision not to intervene.

1. Outcome. The Court of Appeal refused permission to apply for judicial review and refused permission to appeal. None of the grounds, individually or collectively, disclosed a real prospect of success.
2. Environmental statement. The court applied the approach stated in R (Blewett) v Derbyshire CC [2004] Env. L.R. 569, endorsed by R (Edwards) v Environment Agency [2008] UKHL 22. An environmental statement need not provide perfect or complete information. Deficiencies can be identified through publicity and consultation. Only in an exceptional case will a document be so deficient that it cannot reasonably be described as an environmental statement. The failure to outline alternatives was a separate complaint from failure to take environmental considerations into account. On the material available, including the comprehensive planning officer’s report, the statement was not arguably deficient to that degree.
3. Listed building consent. Section 12(3A) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 was read with sections 1 and 16 of the Transport and Works Act 1992. The referral mechanism was directed to listed building consent consequential upon works covered by an order for which planning permission could be deemed to be granted. The present consent formed part of a much wider planning application. The local planning authority was therefore properly involved, even though some works overlapped works authorised by the 2006 Order.
4. Planning officer’s report. Following Oxton Farms v Selby District Council (transcript 18 April 1997), a challenge of this kind normally requires the report’s overall effect to significantly mislead the committee about material matters which remain uncorrected and could affect the decision. The disputed retail figures were not shown to have affected the planning judgment. The proposed retail use was supported by the relevant planning policy, and the London Dungeon premises were outside the application site.
5. Mayor’s intervention. The Mayor’s power under section 2A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 was not to be exercised lightly or routinely. The decision was based on a comprehensive report addressing heritage loss, public benefits and pedestrian considerations. Correspondence referring to cost and delay did not establish improper pressure or undisclosed motives. The court did not need to rely on R v Westminster City Council Ex parte Monahan [1999] QB 87 and doubted its applicability.
6. Costs. The applicant’s liability was capped at £10,000 to each of the Council and the Mayor. Allowing for sums already paid, further payments of £8,000 and £8,500 were ordered respectively.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — refused permission to apply for judicial review and refused permission to appeal.
• Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court — Wilkie J refused permission to apply for judicial review after allowing amendment of the grounds: [2012] EWHC 2653 (Admin).
• Administrative Court — Collins J had previously refused permission on consideration of the papers.