Siraj, R (on the application of) v Kirklees metropolitan Council & Anor

Very special circumstances justifying inappropriate Green Belt development exist only where other considerations clearly outweigh the harm from inappropriateness and any other harm. Those considerations may be assessed together. Their weight is a matter of planning judgment, subject to rationality review.

Planning officers’ reports must be read as a whole and in a commonsense manner. A correctly stated policy test need not be repeated in full throughout the report. Summary reasons for granting planning permission must be assessed in their surrounding circumstances. Where members adopt an officer’s recommendation and reasoning, a brief summary identifying the considerations justifying permission may suffice. It need not repeat the policy test or provide further reasons for the stated reasons. The possibility that another authority might reach a different planning judgment does not establish perversity.

Siraj, a local resident, challenged planning permission granted by Kirklees Metropolitan Council, the local planning authority, to Bennett for an agricultural machinery workshop in the Green Belt. Bennett operated Sovereign Agricultural Services, a business providing specialist agricultural machinery repairs. The council’s planning subcommittee accepted an officer’s recommendation that the business’s specialist service, customers’ requirements, relocation difficulties and lack of suitable alternative sites together justified the development. Permission was granted on 7 April 2009 following negotiation of an agreement requiring removal of the development when the business ceased trading from the premises.

HHJ Langan QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, dismissed the judicial review claim on 5 March 2010: [2010] EWHC 444 (Admin). He granted permission to appeal. Three grounds remained before the Court of Appeal: whether the council had correctly applied PPG 2, whether its summary reasons were adequate, and whether its decision was irrational.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Sullivan LJ gave the reasons, with which Elias and Tomlinson LJJ agreed.

1. The council had applied the correct Green Belt policy test. Very special circumstances required other considerations clearly to outweigh the harm from inappropriateness and any other harm. The officer’s report accurately stated that test at the outset. It did not have to repeat the complete formulation whenever the issue was subsequently discussed. Read as a whole, its abbreviated references did not show that the officer or members had lost sight of the test. The report also demonstrated that substantial weight had been given to the Green Belt objection. No other harm had been identified (paras 17–21).

2. Officers’ reports should be read as a whole, in a commonsense manner, and with regard to their informed readership. A challenge based on a report would not normally merit consideration unless its overall effect significantly misled the committee about material matters which remained uncorrected before the decision. That approach, stated in R v Selby District Council ex parte Oxton Farms, supported rejection of the challenge (paras 19–21).

3. The statutory requirement for summary reasons when granting permission differed from the requirement for a full explanation in a Secretary of State’s planning appeal decision letter. South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) concerned the latter requirement. The adequacy of summary reasons depended on the surrounding circumstances. Here, members had accepted the officer’s recommendation and reasoning. Their summary identified the four considerations and expressly stated that they justified the inappropriate development. It was sufficient without repeating PPG 2 or providing further reasons for those reasons. Fuller summary reasons might be necessary where members departed from an officer’s recommendation (paras 13–16, 23–24).

4. The considerations were legally capable of amounting to very special circumstances. Their combined effect, rather than each consideration in isolation, was material. Whether they sufficiently outweighed the Green Belt harm was a matter of planning judgment. The assessment was supported by the council’s Economic Development Service, and planning officers had not suggested a reasonable prospect of finding a suitable alternative outside the Green Belt. A different authority’s possible disagreement about weight did not make the decision perverse. The dismissal of the judicial review claim therefore stood (paras 25–30).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 21 October 2010, unanimously dismissed the appeal and upheld the dismissal of the judicial review claim: [2010] EWCA Civ 1286 .
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry: HHJ Langan QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, dismissed the challenge to the planning permission by order dated 5 March 2010 and granted permission to appeal: [2010] EWHC 444 (Admin) .