Hawksworth Securities Plc, R (on the application of) v Ireef Queensgate Peterborough Propco S.A.R.L & Ors [2016] EWHC 1870 (admin)
The High Court in Hawsworth Securities Plc, R (on the application of) v Ireef Queensgate Peterborough Propco S.A.R.L & Ors [2016] EWHC 1870 (Admin) had to decide whether the council in granting planning permission had correctly assessed and considered a city centre shopping centre re-development (which included a new cinema) when there was a proposed competing site within the city centre for which its viability was contingent upon the provision of a similar cinema.
The planning permission the subject of the judicial review related to the re-development of the Queensgate Shopping Centre in Peterborough (the Queensgate Scheme). The competing site was immediately to the south east and is know as the Westgate Scheme.
The developer of the Westgate Scheme objected to the Queensgate Scheme on the basis that it would cause prejudice to the viability of the Westgate Scheme. The Westgate Scheme was centred on the provision of a new multi-screen cinema, and the Queensgate Scheme also included the development of a new cinema. It was asserted that there was only enough demand for one cinema in the city centre and so if planning permission was granted for the Queensgate Scheme, this would render the Westgate Scheme unviable to the extent that it would not be able to be implemented and delivered.
Lesson: In dismissing the judicial review, Mrs Justice Lang made the following important comments:
- Competing planning applications need not be heard at the same time. It is standard practice (within the law) for councils to determine each application in turn, and to do so on their own merits in accordance with the development plan;
- Planning consideration of a competing site is only properly characterised as planning harm of the type which would trigger a requirement to consider an alternative site if there was conflict with the development plan for the planning applications or the development plan restricted the number of the type of the proposed development that can be granted. In this case both planning applications were granted; and
- The Court ought not to interfere with the balancing exercise which a council makes on the material before it. Planning judgement is a matter for the decision maker unless such judgement in performing the balancing exercise is irrational or unreasonable (in the Wednesbury sense). Lang J found that the council had not acted irrationally or unreasonably in deciding to grant the permission in dispute, and that clear and sufficient reasons were provided
