Wallis v Vale of Glamorgan Council

In a challenge to a development plan, the appellate court looks for an error of law, not a rehearing of planning merits or a resolution of disputed figures. A planning authority is not bound to accept an inspector’s recommendation, but must give reasons if it departs from it. Its interpretation of planning policy is for the authority, subject to intervention where the interpretation is perverse, irrational or unreasonable. A factual error warrants intervention only if it is so serious that it causes an error of law. A development plan may be read with a regional strategic plan when assessing whether its policies meet statutory and policy requirements.

Dr Max Wallis brought proceedings in the Administrative Court seeking to quash five parts of the Vale of Glamorgan Council’s Unitary Development Plan. The challenges concerned Green Belt designation, two strategic road policies, limestone quarry and mineral-reserve provisions, and the waste chapter.

His grounds alleged failures to follow policy, consider material matters, give adequate reasons, comply with the statutory waste regime and undertake strategic environmental assessment. His Honour Judge Wyn Williams QC dismissed the proceedings on 31 March 2006. The judge and, on paper, Dyson LJ refused permission to appeal. On renewed application, the Court of Appeal had to decide whether any ground disclosed a real prospect of successfully appealing rather than a disagreement with planning merits.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused unanimously. The applicant had to identify a real ground of successfully appealing from the judgment below. The grounds had to disclose an error of law and could not merely reopen planning merits.

1. Green Belt. The Council was not bound to accept the Inspector’s recommendation. If it departed from that recommendation, it had to give reasons. The interpretation of Planning Policy Wales 2002 was a matter of planning judgment. The court should not interfere unless the interpretation was shown to be perverse, irrational or unreasonable. The reasons given were adequate.
2. Strategic roads. The judge was entitled to find that the proposed roads were likely to be implemented during the life of the plan and that the Council had considered the material circumstances. No error of law was shown.
3. Quarries. Criticism of landbank figures and other factual matters did not itself establish an error of law. Intervention based on factual error required facts so erroneous that they had led to an error of law. The Council was entitled to rely on yearly assessments in conjunction with the UDP.
4. Waste chapter. The judge was entitled to hold that the UDP could be read together with the Regional Strategic Plan. The court found no fault in the reasoning concerning the Waste Framework Directive 72/442/EEC, the 1994 Regulations and the modifications to the waste chapter. The lower judge’s observations about how he would exercise a discretion to quash were unnecessary to the decision and added no weight to the appeal.

All five grounds sought to extend into the court a debate about planning merits properly addressed through the planning process. None disclosed a point of law justifying permission to appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Renewed application for permission to appeal refused on all five grounds on 8 September 2006.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: His Honour Judge Wyn Williams QC dismissed the proceedings on 31 March 2006.
• Permission stage: The first-instance judge refused permission. Dyson LJ subsequently refused permission on paper on 21 July 2006.