Background
In February 2025 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council granted outline planning permission to Caddick Developments Limited for a large warehouse development on land off Lockett Road (“the Caddick land”). The Caddick land adjoined land owned by Glenbrook Industrial Limited (“the Glenbrook land”), which itself had the benefit of outline planning permission for industrial and storage uses, granted by an Inspector in May 2023. Both sites formed part of a wider area allocated for employment development. A key element of that allocation was the anticipated construction of an internal estate road connecting Bolton Road (serving the Glenbrook land) to Lockett Road (serving the Caddick land), running across both sites.
When outline planning permission was granted for the Caddick land, two conditions (Conditions 3 and 34) fixed a specific crossing point where the estate road would traverse from the Caddick land into the Glenbrook land — at the north-east boundary of the Caddick land. Glenbrook had preferred a different crossing point further to the south. The core of Glenbrook’s complaint was procedural: Caddick had filed substitute versions of its site access plans in December 2024, which showed the estate road reaching the boundary at the crossing point adopted in the conditions, but the Council failed to publish those substitute plans on its website until after it had already determined and approved the application. By the time Glenbrook saw the substituted plans, the permission had been granted. Glenbrook brought proceedings for judicial review on three grounds: (1) that it personally had not had a fair opportunity to make representations on the substituted plans; (2) that the public generally had no such opportunity; and (3) that the failure breached a legitimate expectation arising from the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Swift dismissed the application. He accepted that the Council’s failure to publish the substitute plans before making its decision was irregular — most likely an oversight — but held that the irregularity did not give rise to any material unfairness affecting the legality of the decision. Three factors combined to produce that conclusion.
First, the original application documents that had been published included a parameters plan described as a “plan for approval.” That parameters plan showed the proposed roadway reaching the boundary between the Caddick land and the Glenbrook land at the north-east corner — the very crossing point ultimately fixed by the conditions. It was consistent with the planning statement, the transport assessment, and the design and access statement, each of which described the access from Lockett Road as being designed to serve land “to the east and west of the application site” (i.e., the Glenbrook land). Second, Glenbrook’s own expert evidence demonstrated that the company was well aware that the route of the estate road, and the crossing point between the two pieces of land, was a live issue during the application process. Glenbrook’s property consultant had been in contact with the Council in December 2024, just before the substitute plans were filed, asking how the Council intended to deal with the access connection. A letter from Glenbrook’s advisers dated 30 January 2025 — sent while the Caddick application was still under consideration — made representations about the crossing point. Third, Glenbrook had been engaged in active discussions with the Council about whether Condition 5 on its own planning permission prescribed where the estate road should cross the boundary.
Applying the fairness principle from R (Holborn Studios) v Hackney LBC [2018] PTSR 997 — which asks whether those concerned were deprived of the opportunity to make representations — Swift J held that Glenbrook had had, and had used, a fair opportunity to make representations. The argument that Glenbrook’s 30 January 2025 letter was too brief or did not constitute “planning objections” was rejected: the brevity of its representations reflected a choice, not an absence of opportunity. Grounds 2 and 3 added nothing material to Ground 1 on the facts. The application was dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- A planning authority’s failure to publish substitute application documents before determining a planning application is procedurally irregular, but that irregularity does not automatically render the grant of permission unlawful — the court asks whether the irregularity caused a material unfairness, applying the principle from Holborn Studios v Hackney LBC.
- An interested third party who was aware that the contested issue was live in the planning application, made representations on it before the decision, and had access to the original application documents that disclosed the same position as the substituted plans will be hard-pressed to argue it was deprived of a fair opportunity to be heard.
- A parameters plan described in the application documents as a “plan for approval” forms part of the material application documents and can be taken to have put third parties on notice of what the application proposed, even if later substituted access plans were not separately published.
- The brevity of a third party’s representations during a planning consultation will not convert an otherwise fair process into an unfair one — the court looks at the opportunity to participate, not the quality of the participation made.
Why It Matters
Glenbrook v Wigan is a useful illustration of the limits of procedural challenges to planning decisions where the claimant had, in fact, engaged with the contested issue during the application process. Planning authorities frequently grant permission on the basis of documents that are amended, supplemented, or corrected during the determination period. This judgment confirms that where a third party had actual knowledge of the contested issue and made representations on it, the failure to republish a substituted plan will not, in itself, ground a successful judicial review — even if the substitution was not formally notified.
For practitioners advising landowners or developers on neighbouring planning applications, the case highlights the importance of monitoring the full application file — including parameters plans and planning statements — and not relying solely on the submitted access or site layout plans. It also reinforces the importance of making substantive representations in writing during the consultation period: a party who makes brief representations and then seeks judicial review on the ground that it did not have a meaningful chance to participate faces an evidential burden that may be difficult to discharge where the record shows that it did participate.