High Court Rules on Discharge of Planning Condition in Barbara Laing v The Cornwall Council
Introduction
In the High Court of Justice’s decision relating to Barbara Laing, R (on the application of) v The Cornwall Council, the court considered an application for judicial review of a local authority’s decision to discharge a planning condition. The claimant contested the approval of an ecological and landscape management plan concerning a housing development project. The central legal question revolved around the interpretation and compliance of condition 6 attached to outline planning permission, the treatment of material considerations, and the adequacy of the reasons provided for discharging the planning condition.
Key Facts
The case stems from an outline planning permission granted for the construction of nine dwellings, which mandated a landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP) as per condition 6 before the commencement of development. The claimant, a resident living adjacent to the development site, challenged the decision to approve and discharge the LEMP. Three sub-grounds were presented: misinterpretation of condition 6, failure to take into account material considerations, and insufficiency of reasons for the condition’s discharge. These were all disputed by the defending authority, with the developer not participating in the hearing.
Legal Principals
The judgment cited several established legal principles which framed the court’s approach:
-
Weight of Consideration: The weight granted to a planning consideration is within the local authority’s exclusive purview unless it is irrational (Tesco Stores v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995]).
-
Knowledge of Statutory Tests: Local decision-makers are presumed to understand statutory requirements, and adverse inferences of unlawful action would not be easily drawn (South Buckinghamshire v Porter (No. 2) [2004]).
-
Officer’s Reports: To be read with reasonable benevolence as a whole and without excessive criticism, not to be interfered with unless materially misleading (Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017]).
-
Reading and Interpretation of Reports: Reports are meant for an audience familiar with the circumstances of the case and necessitate a fair, benevolent, non-rigorous reading approach (R (Whitley Parish Council) v North Yorkshire County Council [2023]).
-
Interpretation of Planning Conditions: There’s no special rule, and the court looks at the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, purpose of consent, other relevant conditions, and applies common sense (DB Symmetry Ltd v Swindon Borough Council [2022]).
-
Discharging Conditions: Satisfaction of the discharge of a condition is dependent on the specific condition’s wording and requirements (discussed in Cathie v Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council [2022]).
Outcomes
The court found that the authority had erred in its interpretation of condition 6, which was to ensure compliance with the recommendations in the ecological appraisal that had specific requirements regarding hedge length and connectivity on the development site. The authority approached the condition too loosely by assessing whether the LEMP was generally acceptable or satisfactory, rather than ensuring strict compliance with the appraisal’s recommendations. This approach contradicted the principles outlined by the relevant caselaw.
Furthermore, the court concluded that the authority failed to consider material considerations related to hedge length and connectivity. Had the correct interpretation of condition 6 been applied, these aspects would likely have been addressed.
On the adequacy of reasons provided, while the court noted there is no general requirement to give reasons for a decision to discharge a planning condition, it found that if reasons are given and disclose an error of law, the decision can be reviewed based on that error. The reasons provided in the present case did reveal such an error.
Conclusion
In Barbara Laing, R (on the application of) v The Cornwall Council, the High Court held that the authority’s decision to discharge planning condition 6 failed to strictly comply with the required recommendations of the ecological appraisal and failed to tackle indispensable considerations. Consequently, the judgment highlights the importance of adherence to specific terms stated within planning conditions and casts light on the necessity for authorities to undertake a rigorous analysis of the conditions when discharging them. The decision to approve the LEMP was quashed and remitted back to the authority for redetermination. This case underscores the significance of context-specific adherence to recommendations in ecological appraisals within planning permissions and the precision required by local authorities in discharging conditions.