Anthony Ward v Torridge District Council
[2023] EWHC 2629 (KB)
Geoffrey Simmonds, R (on the application of Geoffrey Simmonds) v Blaby District Council & Ors
15 September 2023
[2023] EWHC 2217 (KB)
High Court
A neighbour challenged a council's decision to allow a building to be demolished next to his historic house. The judge agreed the council made two big mistakes: they ignored evidence that the building's poor state was deliberately caused, and they wrongly told a councillor they couldn't vote on the decision. So, the judge overturned the council's decision.
Key Facts
- •Blaby District Council granted planning permission for 13 dwellings and listed building consent for demolition of a milking shed on land adjacent to a Grade II listed farmhouse.
- •The claimant, a neighbour, challenged these decisions on four grounds.
- •Ground 4 concerned whether Councillor Moitt was wrongly advised not to participate in the decision due to a perceived conflict of interest.
- •Grounds 1-3 concerned alleged misdirections by planning officers to the committee regarding NPPF paragraph 196 (deliberate neglect), section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act 1990, and an emerging Conservation Area designation.
Legal Principles
Evidence of deliberate neglect or damage to a heritage asset should not be taken into account in planning decisions.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 196
In considering planning permission affecting a listed building, local planning authorities shall have special regard to preserving the building or its setting.
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, section 66(1)
Harm to the setting of a listed building or a conservation area must be given considerable importance and weight in planning decisions. This creates a strong presumption against granting permission, which can be rebutted by sufficiently powerful public benefits.
R. (Forge Field) v Sevenoaks DC [2014] EWHC 1895
The court must refuse relief if it appears highly likely the outcome would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.
Senior Courts Act 1981, section 31(2A)
Planning officers' reports should be read with reasonable benevolence, and only flawed advice materially misleading the committee renders a decision unlawful.
Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
Outcomes
Claim succeeds on Grounds 1 and 4.
Councillor Moitt was significantly misled by mistaken advice regarding a perceived conflict of interest, impacting the fairness of the decision-making process. The officers' reports failed to adequately address NPPF paragraph 196 regarding deliberate neglect, and this omission was arguably material to the committee's decision.
Claim fails on Grounds 2 and 3.
The court found no substantial doubt that the committee complied with section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act 1990. The advice regarding the emerging Conservation Area, even if flawed, did not materially mislead the committee.
Similar Cases
Nicole Fairey, R (on the application of) v East Riding of Yorkshire Council
[2023] EWHC 361 (Admin)
Widdington Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Uttlesford District Council
[2023] EWHC 1709 (Admin)
Future High Street Living (Staines) Limited v Spelthorne Borough Council
[2023] EWHC 688 (Admin)
Glenn Kinnersley, R (on the application of) v Maidstone Borough Council
[2023] EWCA Civ 172