TWS, R (on the application of) v Manchester City Council

Planning conditions need not impose an express limit on the number of days or hours for which a development may operate if the permission, incorporated documents, conditions and planning obligations together provide effective control. The adequacy of that regime is ordinarily a matter of planning judgment, reviewable only on conventional judicial-review grounds.

For EIA screening, the question is whether the project is likely to have significant environmental effects. Localised effects may still be significant, but geographical extent is only one selection criterion. The authority must apply the precautionary principle and consider uncertainty, while reasonable mitigation may be considered to a limited extent. It cannot use conditions as a substitute for environmental assessment.

The claimant sought judicial review of Manchester City Council’s planning permission for FC United’s proposed football stadium and associated facilities at Moston. She challenged the absence of express limits on the stadium’s use, the absence of detailed noise-monitoring and noise-limit conditions, and the Council’s conclusion that an environmental statement was unnecessary.

The Council had screened the proposal as a Schedule 2 urban development project, reviewed that decision twice, considered extensive planning and acoustic material, and granted permission subject to conditions and section 106 obligations. During the proceedings, the parties agreed minor revisions to certain conditions. The central issues were whether the permission was legally deficient in its controls and whether the EIA screening exercise was lawful.

1. Planning controls. The court granted permission to apply for judicial review but rejected the substantive challenges. A planning condition must serve a planning purpose, fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development, and not be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could impose it, applying Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] A.C. 578 and R v Bristol City Council, ex parte Anderson (1999) 79 P. & C.R. 358.
2. Condition 2 incorporated the relevant drawings and documents and governed both construction and subsequent use. Conditions 6 and 7, read with the other conditions and the section 106 obligations, gave the Council effective control over event frequency, timing, traffic and residential amenity. An express numerical limit was not legally necessary.
3. The application documents contained broad forecasts and working assumptions, rather than a definite proposal limiting the stadium to a fixed number of days or hours. The permission therefore did not authorise more than had been applied for or consulted upon. The principles in Kent County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1976) 33 P. & C.R. 70 and Wheatcroft (Bernard) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1982] J.P.L. 37 were not infringed.
4. The Council was entitled to decide that the imposed noise controls were sufficient. It was not legally required to prescribe particular noise standards, monitoring locations or regular monitoring. The court would not substitute its own planning or acoustic judgment.
5. EIA screening. The Council correctly treated the proposal as Schedule 2 development, applied the Schedule 3 criteria, and addressed the nature, size and location of the project and its potential impacts. The conclusion that the effects were unlikely to be significant was a planning judgment which could be challenged only for manifest or Wednesbury error. The screening process was not invalidated by the absence of an express assumption concerning the precise number of events.
6. The Council did not equate localised effects with insignificant effects. It considered the nature, magnitude, complexity and predictability of the impacts. It also considered mitigation without treating it as a substitute for EIA, consistently with R (Jones) v Mansfield [2003] EWCA Civ 1408, R (Loader) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWCA Civ 869 and R (Lebus) v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2003] P. & C.R. 5.
7. The Council’s summary reasons were barely adequate. The court ordered it to issue fresh reasons in the form recommended by the Head of Planning, without quashing the permission.