Christine Pratt & Anor, R (on the application of) v Exeter City Council
[2024] EWHC 185 (Admin)
Peyton Davis, R (on the application of) v Oxford City Council
11 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1737 (Admin)
High Court
Someone challenged the city council's permission for new houses, saying the council didn't make sure the roads would be improved and didn't show everyone the plans for paying for the improvements beforehand. The judge said the council did enough and that the changes to the roads would likely happen anyway, so the complaints were dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Two conjoined judicial review claims challenged Oxford City Council's (OCC) planning permissions for two developments (Hill View Farm and Almonds Farm).
- •Claims focused on OCC's failure to secure transport improvements and breach of Article 40(3)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (DMPO) by not publishing draft s.106 agreements.
- •Planning permissions delegated to OCC's Head of Planning Services, who finalized s.106 agreements.
- •s.106 agreements secured financial contributions for transport improvements, but not the delivery of the works themselves.
- •Oxfordshire County Council (local highways authority) committed to using contributions for intended purposes or alternatives.
Legal Principles
Planning officers' reports are not read with undue rigor, but with reasonable benevolence. The court will interfere only if the advice materially misdirected the committee.
R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
A decision-maker's consideration of a legally irrelevant factor invalidates the decision unless the factor played no significant part.
R (FDA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] 1 WLR 444
Article 40(3)(b) of the DMPO requires at least one draft planning obligation to be publicly available; breach alone doesn't invalidate the decision, prejudice must be shown.
R (Midcounties Cooperative Ltd) v Wyre Forest DC [2009] EWHC 964 (Admin)
A planning obligation must be necessary to make the development acceptable, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.
Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010
Section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981: Relief refused if the outcome would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.
Section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981
Outcomes
Claims dismissed.
The Planning Committee delegated authority to finalize s.106 agreements and grant permission, contemplating flexibility in spending contributions. The reports did not materially mislead the committee, and the secured contributions were material considerations. No substantial prejudice was shown from the non-publication of draft agreements.
Similar Cases
Sarah Moakes v Canterbury City Council
[2024] EWHC 1272 (Admin)
Bentley Pauncefoot Parish Council v Redditch Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 456 (Admin)
Hayle Town Council, R (on the application of) v The Cornwall Council
[2023] EWHC 389 (Admin)
Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring, R (on the application of) v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
[2024] EWHC 440 (Admin)