Bedford Park Developments v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2337 (Admin)
Alexander James Warren Wynne, R (on the application of) v Vale of White Horse District Council
30 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 1008 (Admin)
High Court
A Scout group lost its old hut and challenged the building of a new community center. They argued the council was unfair and didn't consider them properly. The judge said the council made a reasonable decision, considering everyone, and the Scout group's complaints weren't strong enough to overturn the decision.
Key Facts
- •Alexander James Warren Wynne (Claimant), Chair of Trustees of the 4th Oxford Scout Group, challenged Vale of White Horse District Council's (Defendant) planning permission for a new community pavilion.
- •The permission involved demolishing an existing scout hut used by the Scout Group for nearly 50 years.
- •The Scout Group had vacated the site in March 2021, and the Parish Council (1st Interested Party) owned the land.
- •The Claimant argued the Council irrationally concluded the Scout Group could operate with limited access to the new building and failed to uphold the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED).
- •The Claimant also alleged misinterpretation of local planning policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) regarding the replacement of community facilities.
- •The initial application for permission was refused, and this was a renewed application.
Legal Principles
Planning permission is determined in accordance with development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, s. 38(6); Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s. 70(2)
Interpretation of planning policies is a matter of law; application is a matter of planning judgment, reviewable only on the basis of rationality.
Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13; Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] UKSC 37
A decision-maker doesn't commit an error of law by failing to consider a material consideration unless legally obliged or it's so obviously material that omission is irrational.
R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster)) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3
Planning officers' reports are read with reasonable benevolence; a court interferes only if advice materially misled the decision-maker, uncorrected before the decision.
Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
The PSED requires 'due regard' to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality, and fostering good relations; it's a duty to consider, not to achieve a particular result.
Equality Act 2010, s. 149; R (Baker) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 141; R (Hurley & Moore) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2012] EWHC 201
Under PSED, a decision-maker must be 'properly informed'; if material isn't available, there's a duty to acquire it; the duty is on the decision-maker personally.
R (Bracking) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1345; R (Hurley & Moore) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2012] EWHC 201
NPPF paragraph 99 requires replacement of lost open space, sports, and recreational buildings with equivalent or better provision, or demonstrating that benefits of alternative provision outweigh the loss.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 99
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review refused.
The Claimant's grounds were unarguable. The Council's decision was a matter of planning judgment, not irrationality. The PSED was duly considered, and there was no material misdirection.
Similar Cases
Christine Pratt & Anor, R (on the application of) v Exeter City Council
[2024] EWHC 185 (Admin)
Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)
Sarah Moakes v Canterbury City Council
[2024] EWHC 1272 (Admin)
Stephen Whiteside, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon
[2023] EWHC 3289 (Admin)