Geoffrey Simmonds, R (on the application of Geoffrey Simmonds) v Blaby District Council & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2217 (KB)
Widdington Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Uttlesford District Council
7 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1709 (Admin)
High Court
A council approved a housing plan, but the court overturned this because the council made mistakes in: 1) checking if a simpler, permitted plan could be used instead; 2) assessing the impact on nearby historic buildings; and 3) correctly weighing the benefits versus the impact on these buildings. Because of these mistakes, the court said the council's decision was wrong and had to be cancelled.
Key Facts
- •Widdington Parish Council (WPC) challenged Uttlesford District Council's (UDC) decision to grant planning permission for four dwellings.
- •The site is near a conservation area and listed buildings.
- •UDC lacked a 5-year housing land supply.
- •A previous application was refused.
- •A Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) was granted for access to the site.
- •The LDC was linked to a market, but the likelihood of a market was questioned.
- •The planning application relied on the LDC as a fallback position.
- •The officer's report contained inconsistencies and omissions regarding the heritage impact assessment and the application of the tilted balance under the NPPF.
Legal Principles
A 'fallback' development is a material consideration, but the applicant must show a real prospect of undertaking it if planning permission is refused. The weight afforded depends on the probability and comparison with the proposed development.
R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2019] PTSR 1452; Gambone v SSCLG [2014] EWHC 952 (Admin)
Decision-makers must have special regard to preserving listed buildings and conservation areas.
Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
The court will not intervene unless there is a clear error of law in the decision-maker's approach to heritage impacts.
Catesby Estates Ltd v Steer [2019] P & CR 5 (CA)
In the absence of a 5-year housing supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, but this does not displace the statutory obligations to consider heritage impacts.
NPPF paragraph 11(d); Monkhill v SSHCLG [2020] PTSR 416
A planning authority should have regard to its previous similar decisions, but may depart from them with rational reasons.
North Wiltshire DC v Secretary of State for the Environment (1992) 56 P&CR 137
Relief under s.31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 should be refused if the outcome would highly likely have been the same even without the errors.
Senior Courts Act 1981, s.31(2A)
Outcomes
Grounds 1 (limbs 1 and 2) and 2 (limbs 2 and 3) succeeded.
UDC's approach to the fallback position was flawed, lacking adequate analysis of the likelihood of alternative uses. The heritage impact assessment was inconsistent and failed to properly consider the tilted balance under the NPPF.
Grounds 3 and 4 failed.
While the application was similar to a previously refused application, the reasons for the change in decision were apparent. The mention of appeal costs was related to procedural matters, not an improper consideration.
UDC's decision to grant planning permission was quashed.
The court found that it was not highly likely the decision would have been the same without the identified errors. The errors were material to the decision-making process, especially given the decision was made on a casting vote.
Similar Cases
Seedlings Property Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3371 (Admin)
Anthony Ward v Torridge District Council
[2023] EWHC 2629 (KB)
Norton St. Philip Parish Council v Mendip District Council
[2022] EWHC 3432 (Admin)
Mid Suffolk District Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 930 (Admin)