Glenbrook Industrial Limited, R (on the application of) v Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

In planning applications, amendments may be made before determination. Whether fairness requires further consultation is a matter for the planning officer’s judgment, assessed in the circumstances of the particular application. Relevant considerations include the nature and implications of the amendment and the consultation responses already received. Re-consultation may be necessary where an amendment is consequential or controversial, even if the physical change appears minor. At the permission stage, the court need only decide whether the proposed challenge is arguable. An arguable failure to consult an interested party on revised plans, particularly where the revisions affect a disputed access connection and are relied on by planning conditions, is sufficient to justify permission for judicial review.

Glenbrook Industrial Limited sought permission to apply for judicial review of Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council’s decision to grant outline planning permission for a warehouse development on adjoining land. The application was in outline form, with access onto Lockett Road approved and other matters reserved.

During the determination process, revised access plans were submitted. They depicted internal roads extending to the site boundary and were later relied on in conditions securing connectivity. The revised plans were not published for consultation. Glenbrook argued that it should have been consulted, and that the public had a legitimate expectation of further consultation.

The court considered whether grounds alleging procedural unfairness and breach of legitimate expectation were arguable.

1. Permission granted. Permission was granted on the grounds alleging failure to consult Glenbrook on the revised plans and breach of the Council’s stated approach to further consultation. The court directed counsel to draw up an order including case-management directions for the substantive hearing.
2. A planning application may be amended during the application process and before final determination. The planning officer must decide, in the circumstances of the particular application, whether fairness requires re-consultation. The assessment includes the nature and implications of the revisions and the consultation responses already received. Minor and uncontroversial amendments may not require further consultation, while even minor amendments may require it if they are consequential or controversial.
3. The application was in outline form, but access onto Lockett Road was approved and the revised plans were material because the connectivity conditions were framed by reference to them. The revisions showed the internal road extending to the site boundary, whereas earlier published material was capable of indicating that no vehicular connection was fixed.
4. The issue remained contested between the interested parties and the Council. The Council knew of Glenbrook’s particular interest in the connection point and of its differing interpretation of the earlier planning condition. In that context, it was arguable that Glenbrook should have been consulted on the revised plans before the decision was made.
5. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement stated that further consultation would be undertaken where amendments significantly altered the nature or impact of a proposal. It was arguable that the amendments fell within that description.