Jonathan Armstrong, R (on the application of) v Ashford Borough Council
[2023] EWHC 317 (Admin)
Anthony Ward v Torridge District Council
20 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2629 (KB)
High Court
A neighbor sued because the council let his neighbor build a dairy farm without following the rules. The court said the council didn't properly check if the farm could work without the illegal parts, didn't listen to environmental experts about protecting special nature areas, and didn't get enough information about smells. The court made the council take down the illegal bits.
Key Facts
- •Anthony Ward (Claimant) challenged Torridge District Council's (Defendant) grant of planning permission to James and Kelly Seabridge (Interested Party) for alterations to their dairy farm.
- •The Interested Party's prior unauthorized development was fundamental to their dairy farm operation.
- •The planning permission was granted despite objections from Natural England regarding Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and concerns about odour impacts.
- •The Claimant argued the council unlawfully assumed a fall-back position for the Interested Party, failed to give sufficient weight to Natural England's objections, and failed to obtain sufficient information on odour impacts.
Legal Principles
Planning officer reports should be read with reasonable benevolence, but the court should proceed on the basis that a planning officer knows the relevant law unless there is a clear indication to the contrary.
R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
For a fall-back development to be a material consideration, the applicant must have a lawful ability to undertake it and show a real prospect of doing so if planning permission is refused. The weight afforded to the fall-back is fact-sensitive.
R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314; R (Widdington Parish Council) v Uttlesford DC [2023] EWHC 1709 (Admin)
Natural England's advice must be given great or considerable weight.
Not explicitly stated but implied.
A planning authority must obtain sufficient information to determine an application properly.
Not explicitly stated but implied.
Outcomes
Judicial review application succeeds on Ground 1 (unlawful fall-back assumption).
The planning officer failed to assess the real prospect of the Interested Party continuing their dairy operation without the unauthorized development. All available evidence indicated the operation was unsustainable without it.
Judicial review application succeeds on Ground 2 (insufficient weight to Natural England's objections).
The planning officer failed to address Natural England's concerns about the lack of a proper baseline for assessing ammonia emissions and the need for an 'in-combination' assessment of all applications impacting the SSSIs.
Judicial review application succeeds on Ground 3 (insufficient odour information) because Ground 1 succeeded.
Ground 3 is considered only on the alternative hypothesis that Ground 1 fails. In that scenario, the lack of odour impact assessment would be less crucial, but because Ground 1 succeeds, Ground 3 also succeeds.
Similar Cases
Geoffrey Simmonds, R (on the application of Geoffrey Simmonds) v Blaby District Council & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2217 (KB)
Dr Rosalind Bradbury, R (on the application of) v Awdurdod Parc Cenedlaethol Bannau Brycheiniog (Brecon Beacons National Park Authority)
[2024] EWHC 1242 (Admin)
Friends of the West Oxfordshire Cotswolds, R (on the application of) v West Oxfordshire District Council
[2023] EWHC 901 (Admin)
Widdington Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Uttlesford District Council
[2023] EWHC 1709 (Admin)