Town and country planning: Economic considerations

Respondent granting developer outline planning permission - whether description of proposed development insufficient to comply with environmental statement requirements - Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1998 sched 3 para 2(a) - application dismissed

R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Milne: Queen's Bench Division: Crown Office List: Sullivan J: 31 July 2000

In May 1999, upon an application for judicial review brought by Milne (the applicant) and others, the court quashed two outline planning permissions granted by the respondent council to William Bowden Properties Ltd (WB) and English Partnerships (EP) for a proposed business park development (see R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Tew (1999) 3 PLR 74).

The court found that the 'bare' outline applications failed to comply with the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 sched 3 para 2(a), which implemented EC Directive 85/337/EEC.

It was further held that the respondent had been wrong in concluding that the applications satisfied policy EC/6(d) in the unitary development plan (UDP).

Following the court's decision, WB and EP amended their applications, added a third application and submitted a new environmental statement in relation to the whole project.

In December 1999, the respondent, through its environment control subcommittee, granted the three outline permissions subject to conditions.

The applicant sought to quash the decision on the grounds that, first, the description of the proposed development contained in the applications was still insufficient to comply with the requirements of sched 3 para 2(a).

It was submitted that an outline planning application was incompatible with para 2(a) as a matter of principle, and that the existence of reserved matters meant that the outline procedure itself was not in line with the requirements or objectives of Directive 85/337.

Second, the applicant contended that policy EC/6(d) had to be strictly applied and that, if its criteria were not met, the development was not in accordance with the UDP.

Held: The application was dismissed.

1.

It was not contrary to the directive's objectives to integrate environmental assessment into domestic legislation for outline permission, even though such legislation acknowledged some degree of flexibility for some projects.

The directive sought to ensure that as much knowledge was available to the decision-maker as could reasonably be obtained.

It was not intended to frustrate projects that required a degree of flexibility.

On a sensible interpretation of para 2(a) of the 1998 assessment regulations, the requirement to provide information about the 'site and design and scale of the development' could be satisfied without providing every piece of information about those matters.

The level of information required to satisfy para 2(a) had to be sufficient to enable the likely significant effects to be assessed.

The applicant's contention that an application for outline permission could not be made if the development required an environmental statement wasill-founded.

2.

It would be difficult to find any project of any significance that was wholly in accord with the relevant development plan.

For the purposes of s.54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it was enough that the proposal accorded with the UDP when considered as a whole.

It did not have to accord with each and every policy within it.

Policy EC/6(d) was a most relevant, but not the only relevant, policy in the UDP.

John Howell QC (instructed by Patwa Solicitors, Birmingham) appeared for the applicant; Timothy Straker QC (instructed by the solicitor to Rochdale Borough Council) appeared for the first respondent; Brian Ash QC (instructed by Eversheds) appeared for the second respondent developers.