Deborah Glass Woodin & Ors, R (on the application of) v Oxford City Council

A local planning authority must remain satisfied, when granting permission, that a development is not EIA development. A previous negative screening opinion is relevant but does not remove that continuing duty.

Whether a proposal forms part of a wider project is a fact-sensitive planning judgment. Relevant considerations include common ownership, simultaneous determination, functional interdependence and whether the proposal is justified and pursued independently. A court reviews the judgment for irrationality, not merits.

Planning committee advice must be assessed in context. Guidance against a privately organised site visit may protect procedural fairness without unlawfully preventing lobbying or representations. A historic alternative scheme is not a mandatory material consideration merely because it may be relevant; it must be expressly required by legislation or policy, or so obviously material that omission would be irrational.

The claimant, acting on behalf of Friends of Grandpont Nature Park, sought judicial review of Oxford City Council’s decision to grant itself planning permission for Oxpens Bridge, a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the River Thames.

Five grounds alleged a material error of fact concerning the development plan, unlawful advice about the Council’s environmental impact assessment screening decision, an irrational failure to treat the bridge as integral to wider development, procedural unfairness concerning lobbying and functional separation, and failure to consider a 2016 report about improving an existing bridge.

The central issues were whether the bridge was a standalone EIA project, whether the Council could rely on its negative screening opinion, and whether the alleged procedural and planning errors vitiated the permission.

1. Claim dismissed. The Council’s interpretation of the development plan was lawful. The plan supported improved pedestrian and cycling connectivity across waterways in Oxpens. Although the southern landing was outside the designated Area of Change, a bridge starting in Oxpens Meadows necessarily had to land in Grandpont Nature Park. The officers’ advice therefore contained no material error of fact.

2. Under regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, the authority retained a continuing duty, when granting permission, to be satisfied that the development was not EIA development. A negative screening opinion had continuing relevance as a benchmark, but no conclusive legal effect. The Council addressed that duty before granting permission.

3. The identification of the relevant EIA project was ultimately a fact-specific planning judgment. The Council had to consider whether the bridge was integral to wider development. It did so through the officers’ reports and oral advice, applying the relevant factors. The conclusion that the bridge could proceed independently, and that the wider developments could also proceed without it, was rational. The case was materially different from Tewkesbury, where the bridge served no purpose other than unlocking the wider development.

4. The Council did not unlawfully rely on a future EIA for another application. The reference to a future environmental statement was ancillary factual context, not the basis of the decision. The operative reasoning concerned the bridge’s status as a separate project.

5. The planning officer’s advice that there was no realistic basis to reopen the screening question was lawful when read with the detailed advice already given. It did not legally preclude members from forming their own view.

6. Advice against attending a privately organised site visit with objectors was justified by the Council’s planning code and the need for transparent, controlled decision-making. It did not prevent lobbying generally or the claimant’s Article 10 rights. Objectors addressed the committee and suffered no substantial prejudice.

7. Regulation 64(2) did not disqualify a former cabinet member who had approved funding two years earlier but had no role in formulating or promoting the planning application. The circumstances did not create a real possibility of apparent bias.

8. The 2016 report was background material, not a consideration so obviously material that express reference was legally required. The existing bridge and its shortcomings had been considered, while the report was remote, high-level and not shown to reflect current conditions or costs.