Trashorfield Ltd, R (on the application of) v Bristol City Council & Ors

In a planning judicial review, the court assesses an officers’ report fairly and as a whole. It does not subject individual passages to minute exegesis. Intervention is justified only where the report significantly misleads the planning committee on material matters that remain uncorrected.

The weight given to material considerations is a matter of planning judgment. A planning obligation may satisfy the statutory tests even though the precise mitigation projects are not fixed before the obligation is completed, particularly where the planning authority controls the contribution and must use it for appropriate mitigation. An obvious error in a notice of reasons will not justify relief where it could not have affected the decision.

Trashorfield Limited sought judicial review of planning permission granted by Bristol City Council for the redevelopment of the Memorial Stadium site as a supermarket-led scheme including housing and community facilities.

The claim alleged that the Planning Committee had misunderstood or been misled about retail advice, that the section 106 agreement failed to secure compliant retail mitigation and exceeded the delegated authority, and that the notice of reasons misstated compliance with a saved sports-stadium policy. Permission was granted on the first two grounds, while permission on the third ground was renewed before the court.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The Officers’ Report had to be read fairly and as a whole. It identified retail impact as a material and potentially adverse consideration, recorded the differing assessments of WYG and GVA, explained that growth would be lower if the supermarket proceeded, identified the risk of store closures and reduced footfall, and addressed uncertainty concerning linked trips and mitigation. The report was not significantly misleading.
2. The weight given to the retail evidence was a matter for the Planning Committee’s planning judgment. Judicial review was concerned with legality and process, not an opportunity to contest the planning merits. The report was sufficiently clear and full for councillors, who were entitled to decide what information was necessary for their decision.
3. Ground 2 dismissed. Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 required the obligation to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to it, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. The committee was entitled to find that a £202,500 contribution, together with the Council’s obligation to fund a town-centre manager and appropriate environmental, business-support and marketing measures, satisfied those tests.
4. The precise mitigation projects did not need to be identified and agreed before completion of the section 106 agreement. That was particularly so because the contribution was paid to, and controlled by, the Council, which could consult relevant stakeholders and determine appropriate projects over the three-year period.
5. Ground 3 refused. The reference to Policy L8 as a policy with which the development complied was an obvious and immaterial error. The decision-makers knew that the proposal departed from the policy, and the notice could have been corrected without quashing permission. The court should not encourage a pointless claim.
6. The application for judicial review was dismissed on Grounds 1 and 2, and permission to proceed on Ground 3 was refused. Judgment was entered for the Council.