Fitzroy Park Residents Association, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Camden

A local authority complies with a legitimate expectation of consultation where it follows its published consultation policy, provides relevant material within sufficient time for representations, and places those representations before the decision-maker. The authority is not required to adjourn a planning meeting merely because consultees would have preferred more time to obtain expert advice, provided it lawfully exercises its discretion and no material prejudice is shown. Cumulative planning impacts may properly be addressed through conditions and a section 106 agreement where the resulting system of control adequately addresses the identified risks.

The claimant residents’ association sought judicial review of Camden’s grant of conditional planning permission for a dwelling with a large basement at 53 Fitzroy Park, together with a section 106 agreement. The claim was renewed after Hickinbottom J refused permission on the papers. The parties agreed that the claimant had a legitimate expectation of consultation under Camden’s revised Statement of Community Involvement.

The renewed hearing focused principally on whether the claimant had received sufficient time to consider further technical reports, whether the planning committee was obliged to adjourn its meeting, and whether cumulative drainage, flooding and ground-movement impacts had been adequately addressed.

1. Renewed application dismissed. The defendant had lawfully consulted the claimant throughout the planning process. It forwarded the further reports from the developer and Arup seven days before the committee meeting. The claimant was able to consider them, make written representations, and address the committee in person.
2. The claimant’s legitimate expectation did not require an adjournment. The committee had a discretion whether to adjourn. It was entitled to conclude, on the information before it, that an adjournment was unnecessary, that there were no exceptional planning circumstances requiring one, and that the claimant had suffered no prejudice.
3. The committee had considered cumulative impact, including drainage, flooding and runoff issues affecting neighbouring property and nearby excavation schemes. The conditions and the section 106 agreement provided an appropriate system of control, including independent assessment of the future drainage plan.
4. The defendant had properly considered development plan policy DP27 concerning basement development. There was no arguable legal flaw in its application of that policy, and the planning permission and accompanying agreement addressed all material planning considerations.
5. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the Acknowledgment of Service, agreed at £1,500.

Permission to proceed was refused on the papers by Hickinbottom J on 8 July 2013. The claimant renewed the application before the Administrative Court. The renewed application was dismissed.