Key Facts
- •Challenge to planning permission and listed building consent for basement development.
- •Concerns about construction noise impact on neighboring residents.
- •Claimant lives next door to the proposed development.
- •Development includes a 271 square meter basement with a swimming pool.
- •Construction involves 63 weeks of potentially noisy work.
- •Two grounds for judicial review were allowed: failure to consider material considerations (noise impact) and error of law regarding policy interpretation.
Legal Principles
On a challenge to planning officer reports, the question is whether the advice was seriously misleading on a matter bearing upon the decision and uncorrected before the decision.
Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
If a committee accepts officer recommendations, the reasons are those in the officer's report. Debate among committee members is insignificant.
Scottish Widows PLC v Cherwell DC [2013] EWHC 3968 (Admin) and R(Cook) v RBKC [2024] EWHC 42 (Admin)
Lack of reference to an issue in an officer's report doesn't mean it wasn't considered; a contrary conclusion requires overwhelming evidence.
South Bucks v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953
Decision-makers can weigh material considerations as they see fit, rationally. Planning judgment is theirs; Wednesbury unreasonableness is a high bar.
Tesco Stores v SSE [1995] 1 WLR 759 and R (Newsmith Stainless Ltd) v SoS [2017] PTSR 1126
No duty to give reasons for granting planning permission exists, unless the aggrieved party shows substantial prejudice from inadequate reasoning.
South Bucks (No 2)
Decision-makers use local knowledge and common sense; planners have expertise and understand the legal context.
R (Bishop’s Stortford Civic Federation) v East Herts DC [2014] PTSR 1035
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The judge found that the planning officer's assessment of construction noise as acceptable, considering mitigation and controls, was a matter of planning judgment consistent with local and national policy. The concerns raised in Ground 1 amounted to a disagreement with that judgment, and Ground 2 misinterpreted the planning committee's discussion.