Protecting Our Park Limited v Cheshire East Borough Council

Planning permission may comply with a policy requiring development to enable a life sciences park where its profits contribute meaningfully to the park’s operation or development. The policy need not require the proceeds to fund an identified project to completion unless clear language imposes that restriction.

Nevertheless, a planning decision is unlawful if the officer’s report leads members to believe that the proceeds will fund a specific project, when the available funding is materially insufficient, and the members are not given information enabling them to decide rationally on the true basis. The court must refuse judicial-review relief under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 only where it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different.

Protecting Our Park Limited sought judicial review of Cheshire East Borough Council’s decision to grant planning permission for 139 extra-care units at Alderley Park, known as Symphony Park. The permission was intended to generate a land receipt for reinvestment in the Life Sciences Park under policy LPS 61 and a section 106 agreement.

The claimant argued that the Council had failed to identify the level of cross-funding available, had acted irrationally in concluding that the proposal complied with LPS 61, and had failed to give adequate reasons. The central issues were the proper construction of the policy, the rationality of the decision-making process, and whether relief should be refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

1. Construction of LPS 61. The policy did not require the proceeds of the development to fund a particular project, such as the permitted laboratory and office buildings, to completion. The word “enable” indicated that the funding must make it possible to advance the activities of the Life Sciences Park, but the policy contained no sufficiently clear language imposing a project-specific funding requirement. It was sufficient that the proceeds contributed meaningfully to the operation or development of the Life Sciences Park. The section 106 agreement secured that destination through the Alderley Park Reinvestment Reserve.
2. Ground 1. The officer’s report presented the economic justification in terms suggesting that the Symphony Park receipt would cross-fund the laboratory and office development and thereby secure the stated economic benefits. In fact, the receipt was materially insufficient to meet the identified funding shortfall. A rational decision-making process therefore required either refusal of permission on that basis or a decision to grant permission notwithstanding the insufficiency, supported by reasoning addressing the relevant consequences. The material before the committee did not establish which lawful basis had been adopted. The decision was therefore irrational.
3. Ground 3. The failure to provide reasoning supporting a rational decision also established the challenge based on inadequate reasons. The grounds were closely connected: if the decision could not be shown to have been rationally reached, the reasoning was inadequate.
4. Section 31(2A). The burden lay on the Council and interested party. The court had to assess objectively, by reference to the circumstances at the date of the decision, whether it was highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different. The court could not speculate about the planning judgment that might have been made had the missing information been available. That high threshold was not met.
5. The Council’s decision of 29 August 2024 was quashed. The parties agreed an order after receiving a draft judgment.

This was a first-instance judicial review in the High Court Planning Court. Permission to bring the claim had been granted by a Deputy Judge of the High Court on 28 February 2025.