Ardleigh Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Tendring District Council
[2024] EWHC 648 (Admin)
Jonathan Armstrong, R (on the application of) v Ashford Borough Council
15 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 317 (Admin)
High Court
Someone challenged a council's decision to allow a farm building to become a distillery. The judge said the council's paperwork was good enough, and the challenge failed. The challenger has to pay some of the council's legal costs.
Key Facts
- •Application for permission to apply for judicial review of Ashford Borough Council's decision to grant planning permission for change of use of agricultural building to distillery.
- •Prior approval granted in 2019 for agricultural use under GPDO.
- •Interested Party's planning application for change of use to distillery, initially withdrawn and resubmitted.
- •Rural Planning Ltd raised concerns regarding the building's agricultural necessity and potential enforcement action.
- •Officer's report to the Planning Committee contained information about the application and consultation responses.
- •Clarification at the meeting that the change of use only applied to the ground floor.
- •Council granted planning permission.
- •Claimant's grounds for judicial review: unfairness due to lack of information and inadequacy of the Officer's report.
Legal Principles
Time limit for judicial review of planning permission runs from the grant, not the resolution authorizing the grant, but a mere resolution can be challenged.
R (Burkett) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC and another [2002] UKHL 23, [2002] 1 WLR 1593
Weight given to material considerations is for decision-makers; reports should be concise and focused; assessment of information is for planning officers; judicial review succeeds only if report significantly misleads; reports should be read fairly as a whole and addressed to a knowledgeable readership; Courts should proceed with prudence and caution.
R (Trashorfield Ltd) v Bristol City Council v Sainsbury’s Ltd, Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd [2014] EWHC 757 Admin
Aarhus Convention claims and cost protection under CPR 45.42, 45.43, 45.44.
CPR 45.42(1), rules 45.43-45
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review refused.
Neither ground of challenge (unfairness and inadequate report) had a realistic prospect of success. The clarification regarding the ground floor scope was not misleading and the officer's report, while not exhaustive, did not significantly mislead the committee.
Costs awarded to the Defendant.
No significant public interest to justify deviating from the usual costs-follow-the-event rule in judicial review applications; Claimant's Aarhus Convention claim did not fully comply with the CPR.
Similar Cases
Anthony Ward v Torridge District Council
[2023] EWHC 2629 (KB)
Sarah Moakes v Canterbury City Council
[2024] EWHC 1272 (Admin)
Dr Rosalind Bradbury, R (on the application of) v Awdurdod Parc Cenedlaethol Bannau Brycheiniog (Brecon Beacons National Park Authority)
[2024] EWHC 1242 (Admin)
Rory Walsh, R (on the application of) v Horsham District Council
[2024] EWHC 2640 (Admin)