Watson & Ors v Essex County Council & Anor

On judicial review of a development plan, an irregularity invalidates the decision only where it may materially have affected the outcome or substantially prejudiced the claimant. The adequacy of reasons depends on context, including whether the authority accepted a planning inspector’s recommendation and whether the issue involved planning judgment. Confusion among some members of a large decision-making body is insufficient unless a majority must have proceeded on a false premise. A failure to consider some objections is immaterial where the omitted objections add no substantive point and could not realistically have affected the decision.

The applicants challenged the adoption of the Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan, particularly Policy W7G concerning waste incineration. Sullivan J dismissed the application under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The applicants sought permission to appeal, alleging an unlawful council resolution, inadequate reasons, material errors of fact, confusion about the council’s legal position, deficiencies in the policy, failure properly to consider objections, and an erroneous costs order.

1. Permission refused. The court, comprising Laws LJ and Jonathan Parker LJ, refused permission to appeal.
2. The council’s resolution stating that there would be no incineration under the current administration, with a possible referendum, was arguably eccentric or irrational. It did not invalidate adoption of the plan. The applicants could not realistically show that, without that statement, the council might have adopted materially different policies.
3. The duty to give reasons under Regulation 29 had to be assessed in context. The council accepted the inspector’s recommendation, and the modified policy did not materially differ from it. The inspector’s adequate reasons could therefore be adopted by necessary inference. No further detailed explanation was required.
4. The alleged errors concerning recycling and recovery targets did not establish a material factual error capable of affecting the decision. Nor did confusion among some councillors invalidate the council’s decision. In a challenge under section 287, the focus is ordinarily on the formal reports and resolutions. Individual misunderstanding is immaterial unless it is established that a majority proceeded on a false premise.
5. The policy was not unlawful merely because its recycling targets were referred to in the plan’s explanatory material or originated in a non-statutory statement of intent.
6. The failure to consider 546 objections was accepted as an administrative defect, but caused no substantial prejudice. Those objections were almost entirely pro forma and raised no new point of substance. The judge was entitled to refuse relief on that ground.
7. The costs order fell within the judge’s broad discretion and disclosed no arguable error.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal refused.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Sullivan J dismissed the application under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on 27 March 2002.