Barbara Laing, R (on the application of) v The Cornwall Council
[2024] EWHC 120 (Admin)
Friends of the West Oxfordshire Cotswolds, R (on the application of) v West Oxfordshire District Council
20 April 2023
[2023] EWHC 901 (Admin)
High Court
A council allowed builders to cut down part of a protected woodland area even though they promised not to. The court said the council broke the rules and must redo its decision.
Key Facts
- •West Oxfordshire District Council (the authority) granted planning permission for a residential development including a supported living facility.
- •The permission included conditions requiring a 5-meter buffer zone between the development and Rushy Bank ancient woodland.
- •The authority later approved plans that did not fully achieve the 5-meter buffer zone at three points.
- •Friends of the West Oxfordshire Cotswolds (the claimant) challenged this decision.
- •The claimant argued that the authority's decision was unlawful because it approved plans inconsistent with the condition requiring the buffer zone.
Legal Principles
Development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 180(c)
Ancient woodland needs special care with buffers of additional planting of native trees of at least 15 metres between woodland and development.
West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2013, paragraph 8.9
Planning conditions are to be interpreted similarly to other public documents, considering the natural and ordinary meaning of words, the overall purpose, other conditions, and common sense.
DB Symmetry Ltd v Swindon Borough Council [2022] UKSC 33, paragraph 66
A planning permission that imposes mutually inconsistent obligations will be unlawful.
Finney v Welsh Ministers [2019] EWCA Civ 1868
The court will be cautious in admitting evidence generated after the decision under review.
R (United Trade Action Group) v TfL [2021] EWCA Civ 1197
Outcomes
Ground 1 Succeeds: The approval of plans under condition 8 was inconsistent with the requirement for a 5-meter buffer zone.
Condition 8 required works to be carried out as per approved plans showing a 5-meter buffer. The approved plans did not achieve this at three points.
Grounds 2 and 3 are no longer relevant.
The authority conceded an error in its previous reasoning.
Ground 3A Succeeds: The authority misunderstood or acted irrationally in reliance upon Natural England's consultation response.
The authority misinterpreted Natural England's advice, which required the authority to assess the impact of the development, not simply to note a lack of objection.
Ground 4 Succeeds: The tree protection plan approved under condition 13 was inaccurate and did not comply with BS5837:2012.
The approved plan predated the discovery of boundary discrepancies, resulting in non-compliance with the standard.
The decisions to approve the discharge of conditions 8, 12, and 13 are quashed.
The grounds 1, 3A, and 4 succeeded, demonstrating the unlawfulness of the council's decisions.
Similar Cases
Weston Homes Plc, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2089 (Admin)
Barbara Atwill, R (on the application of) v New Forest National Park Authority
[2023] EWHC 625 (Admin)
Anthony Ward v Torridge District Council
[2023] EWHC 2629 (KB)
Wellingborough Walks Action Group Ltd, R (on the application of) v North Northamptonshire Council
[2024] EWHC 1225 (Admin)