Parish council fails in legal challenge to planning permission granted by two councils for 2,560 dwelling development

A Planning Court judge has dismissed a parish council’s judicial review challenge to the grant of planning permission by two local authorities for a major scheme with up to 2,560 dwellings.

Redditch Borough Council and Bromsgrove Borough Council were engaged because the scale of the application involved land comprised in both of their administrative areas.

The planning permission granted on 21 January 2022 was a hybrid application containing both outline and detailed matters.

The permission granted outline planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of up to 2,560 dwellings, a local centre including retail floor space, health and community facilities and a three-form entry first school with associated playing area and parking, together with all necessary enabling ancillary works in respect of these features.

The detailed element of the application was for the creation of a means of access and emergency pedestrian and cycle access.

The application was subject to numerous conditions along with an obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

In Bentley Pauncefoot Parish Council v Redditch Borough Council & Anor [2023] EWHC 456 (Admin) the claimant parish council advanced three grounds.

The first two grounds related to contentions that the committee were misled and that they did not have before them the necessary information to reach a lawful decision, in particular in relation to the implications of the development for impacts created by vehicular traffic. The claimant had the benefit of permission in relation to both of these grounds.

Ground 3 related to the claimant's concerns about the failure to require a contribution towards educational transport. Permission to apply for judicial review in relation to this ground had been refused, and thus ground 3 was before the court as an application for renewal of permission in the first instance.

In relation to Ground 1, Mr Justice Dove concluded that all of the information that was necessary for a properly informed decision on the planning merits was available to the committee.

He also concluded, having reflected on the parties' submissions, that he was not satisfied that there was any substance in the claimant's complaints under ground 2.

Mr Justice Dove decided that the claimant should similarly be refused permission to apply for judicial review in relation to ground 3.