Samuel Smith Old Brewery Tadcaster v Selby District Council

In a planning judicial review, the court will not substitute its own planning judgment for that of the decision-maker. Intervention is justified only where the decision is irrational or was not reasonably open to the authority on the material before it. A conservation area’s significance may lie principally in its historic fabric and urban form, so an improvement to a modern intervention need not enhance or better reveal that significance. An authority deciding whether to grant planning permission must focus on considerations material to that statutory choice. Financial consequences unrelated to the use and development of land do not become material merely because the authority is itself the applicant.

The claimant challenged the defendant local planning authority’s decision to grant itself permission to resurface and reconfigure a town-centre car park within a conservation area and near listed buildings. The challenge alleged failures to consider relevant conservation assessments, planning policies, guidance, an alternative scheme and financial consequences, and alleged that the officer’s report was misleading or irrational.

The central issues were whether the report lawfully addressed the heritage and local-plan policies, whether the decision involved an impermissible planning judgment, and whether the authority could treat the comparative cost of alternative schemes as immaterial.

1. The application was dismissed. The officer’s report lawfully addressed the relevant local and national planning policies, the conservation area assessment, the effect on listed buildings, the alternative scheme and the objections raised.
2. The conservation area assessment identified the existing car park as scruffy and detracting from the town’s character, and suggested resurfacing, possibly in York stone setts. It did not make York stone the only acceptable material or render tarmac unlawful. The officer was entitled to regard tarmac as acceptable because it was already used at the site and was prevalent in the conservation area.
3. Under Policy HE9.5 of PPS5, the relevant question was whether the proposal would enhance or better reveal the significance of the conservation area. The Council was entitled to conclude that the car park was a modern intervention and that changing its surface would have little effect on the significance arising from the area’s historic fabric and pattern of land uses. That was a planning judgment, and the court could interfere only if the conclusion was not reasonably open to the decision-maker.
4. The report’s treatment of the listed buildings and their settings was sufficient. The reasoning concerning the conservation area was capable of supporting the conclusion that the proposal would, at worst, have a neutral impact and preserve the listed buildings’ settings.
5. The Council was entitled to give little weight to the objection based on the claimant’s approved alternative scheme. Implementation depended on control of the land. The report also lawfully treated budgetary constraints, comparative cost and best value as immaterial to the grant of planning permission.
6. The Health and Safety Executive v Wolverhampton City Council [2012] UKSC 34 concerned the materiality of financial considerations in deciding whether to make a revocation order under section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It did not establish that such considerations were material to the different statutory choice whether to grant or refuse permission under section 70, even where the authority had a direct financial interest.

The decision was reasonably open to the Council and the claim was dismissed.