Bayraktaroglu, R (on the application of) v South Cambridgeshire District Council

A planning authority must consider material planning considerations and may assign them the weight it considers appropriate. The views of a highway authority on highway safety are material, but they do not automatically override other planning considerations or require contrary expert evidence before a different conclusion may be reached. Where policy requires the viability of a proposed use to be considered, the authority must address the viability of the proposal as a whole. A decision will not be quashed for immaterial considerations or inadequate reasons where there is no realistic possibility that the outcome would have differed. A statutory duty to give summary reasons is satisfied where the planning permission adequately explains the basis for departing from relevant development-plan policies.

The claimant sought judicial review of planning permission and listed building consent granted by South Cambridgeshire District Council for the restoration and conversion of Sawston Hall from a language school to a hotel, together with new buildings and associated works. He challenged the decisions on five grounds concerning highway safety, the viability of the scheme, allegedly immaterial considerations, the adequacy of the stated reasons, and Green Belt policy.

The Council and the interested parties also challenged the claimant’s sufficient interest and relied on delay. The court determined the merits first and considered whether the Council had acted unlawfully in its assessment and explanation of the proposal.

1. Claim dismissed. None of the five grounds of challenge was made out.

2. The local highway authority’s view was a material consideration, but it was not determinative. The Council was entitled to assess the significance of the inadequate visibility splays, having regard to the site inspections, the highway authority’s views, the claimant’s expert evidence and the members’ own experience. It was also entitled to balance the disadvantages of the highway arrangements against the perceived advantages of the proposal.

3. The relevant policy guidance required the Council to consider the viability of the proposals as a whole. The Council had done so. It was entitled to assess the Humberts Leisure report together with the criticisms made by Peter Elworthy & Moore and reach its own conclusion that viability had been demonstrated.

4. The reference in the minutes to opportunities arising from highways, sustainability and commercial viability did not establish that impermissible considerations had materially affected the decision. Even assuming that immaterial matters had been considered, there was no realistic possibility that the Council would have reached a different conclusion. The omission of those peripheral matters from the stated reasons was therefore not unlawful.

5. The duty to give summary reasons under article 22(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 was satisfied. The permission identified the relevant departures from Green Belt and tourist-related development policies and gave reasons explaining why permission was nevertheless acceptable.

6. As academic matters, the claimant had sufficient interest despite living away from the site, and the evidence did not establish bad faith. If unlawfulness had been proved, relief would not have been withheld for delay absent very substantial prejudice.