Enstone Uplands and District Conservation Trust, R (on the application of) v West Oxfordshire District Council

In judicial review of a planning permission, a planning authority must take material considerations into account, but the court will not infer that it failed to do so merely because members relied on observations made during a site visit. A planning condition may be personal to a company despite guidance that such conditions are normally inappropriate, where the personal element serves a justifiable planning purpose and causes no material prejudice. A noise condition is not unlawful merely because it omits a measurement height if an established professional practice and the permission’s monitoring arrangements provide sufficient certainty. The word “or” may require compliance with both limits when read in the context of distinct noise indices and the words “at any time”. Reasons for permission are adequate if they identify the principal planning issue and explain the relevance of the conditions.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a performance motor sport circuit and related rally-course use at an airfield. The challenge concerned four matters: whether the planning committee had considered the potential for noise exceeding that experienced during site visits; whether a personal and temporary condition was contrary to paragraph 93 of Circular 11/95; whether the noise condition was imprecise or unenforceable; and whether the reasons for permission complied with article 22 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

1. Ground 1. The committee had sufficient material before it to understand that the proposed 75dB LAeq limit permitted higher noise than that experienced during the site visits. The reports, email, solicitor’s letter, proposed condition and officer’s presentation collectively addressed the point. The court would not infer a failure to take the matter into account from members’ reliance on what they heard at the identified locations.
2. Ground 2. The personal element of condition 7 was contrary to the guidance in paragraph 93 of Circular 11/95, and the Council had failed to take that conflict into account. Nevertheless, the condition served a justifiable planning purpose: it linked the temporary five-year permission to the Council’s ability to review environmental effects. The condition was not unlawful and caused no prejudice to the claimant. In any event, the permission would not have been quashed in the exercise of discretion.
3. Ground 3. The absence of a specified measurement height did not make condition 9 unlawful. British Standard 7445 supplied a commonly understood range, and the monitoring scheme adopted a height of 1.3 metres. Properly construed, the condition required compliance with both the 75dB LAeq and 83dB LAmax limits. The different indices and the words “at any time” meant that neither limit could be exceeded.
4. Ground 4. The reasons complied with article 22 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. They identified the central noise issue and stated that conditions had been imposed to limit noise. The Council was not required to explain a proposition that had never been its case, and the personal condition was not a main issue requiring separate explanation.

The judicial review claim was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of £12,754. Permission to appeal was refused, although the time for renewing the application was extended to 28 days.