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

In planning decision-making, fairness is assessed by the court in the circumstances of the particular case. A practical question is whether the person concerned was deprived of a fair opportunity to make representations on an issue which the authority would decide. An irregular failure to publish revised plans does not necessarily make a planning decision unlawful. The court must consider all information available to the claimant, the significance of the allegedly unpublished material, and the claimant’s actual understanding and opportunity to address the issue.

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council granted outline planning permission to Caddick Developments Limited for warehouse development adjoining land for which Glenbrook Industrial Limited already had planning permission. Glenbrook challenged the decision after revised access plans were published only after permission had been granted. It alleged unfairness, lack of public opportunity to comment, and breach of a legitimate expectation arising from the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.

The court treated the latter two grounds as adding nothing material to the principal fairness challenge. The central issue was whether Glenbrook had a fair opportunity to make representations about the route of a possible estate road and its crossing point between the two sites.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Council’s failure to publish the substitute access plans before determining the application was an irregularity, but it did not cause material unfairness or otherwise affect the legality of the decision.
2. By reference to R (Holborn Studios) v Hackney LBC [2018] PTSR 997, the governing principle was fairness. Its requirements are determined by the court in the circumstances of each case. A practical way to frame the question is whether the person concerned was deprived of an opportunity to make representations.
3. The published parameters plan was a plan for approval and identified the maximum area for the internal roadway. It showed the proposed roadway extending to the boundary with Glenbrook’s land. Other published documents referred to access to land east and west of the application site and identified the boundary area as a possible link-road location. Taken together, that information made Caddick’s position sufficiently clear.
4. Glenbrook’s own evidence showed that it understood the route of the estate road remained a live issue. Its representatives discussed the issue with the Council and its letter of 30 January 2025 made representations about the effect of the Glenbrook permission, the preferred crossing point, safety, suitability and prejudice to Glenbrook’s proposed layout.
5. The original and substitute access plans did not materially alter the position. Those plans concerned access from Lockett Road into the Caddick site and did not, by themselves, determine the route of the estate road within the site. Glenbrook had a fair opportunity to make representations on the crossing point. Grounds based on public consultation and legitimate expectation added nothing material.