Embleton Parish Council & Anor, R (on the application of) v Gaston

A planning authority’s judgment under paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework concerns whether there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near the workplace. Economic viability is not an additional requirement where that policy applies.

An environmental impact assessment screening opinion must, under regulation 4(7)(a) of the 2011 Regulations, be accompanied by a written statement giving clearly and precisely the full reasons for the conclusion. A technical breach does not necessarily justify quashing planning permission where the reasons can be gleaned from the registered documents and no prejudice is shown. A local planning authority need not adopt a statutory consultee’s proposed planning condition in identical terms.

The claimants sought judicial review of Northumberland County Council’s grant of planning permission to Ivor Gaston for a livestock building, temporary caravan and associated development at Dunstan Steads Farm.

Seven grounds alleged failures concerning agricultural viability, the suitability of nearby accommodation, dark skies, environmental impact assessment screening, heritage advertising, consultation and habitats assessment. Permission to bring the claim was granted on all grounds. The central questions were whether the Council had acted unlawfully, irrationally or unfairly in granting permission and whether any procedural breach caused material prejudice.

1. Claim dismissed. All seven grounds of challenge failed.
2. Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework required a planning judgment on whether there was an essential need for a rural worker to live at or near the agricultural workplace. It did not require proof that the proposed enterprise was economically viable. The Committee was entitled to accept the Council’s agricultural consultant’s evidence and to reject contrary financial analysis.
3. The Committee was entitled to conclude that a short-term let of a nearby cottage would not satisfy the identified need. Its decision was not irrational, and the report accurately reflected the applicant’s evidence.
4. The Council had considered the policy on dark skies. It was not required to impose the AONB Partnership’s recommended condition in identical terms. A condition regulating external lighting was rationally related to the planning concern.
5. The screening opinions concerned Schedule 2 development in a sensitive area. Under regulation 4(7)(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, the checklist was not itself a written statement giving clearly and precisely the full reasons. There was therefore a technical breach. The registered documents nevertheless enabled an informed reader to understand the reasons, and no prejudice or realistic prospect of a different decision was shown, so the permission was not quashed.
6. Regulation 5A of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 was not engaged because the Council had rationally concluded that the development would not affect the setting of Dunstanburgh Castle or the character and appearance of the conservation area. In any event, no prejudice was established.
7. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement created an expectation that the National Trust would be notified of the committee date. That expectation was breached, but the claimants could not show significant prejudice. The Council was also entitled to conclude that the proposal would have no significant effect on European sites and was not obliged to impose the conditions suggested in earlier Natural England advice.

The judgment concerned a first-instance judicial review. Permission to apply was granted on all grounds on 15 March 2013. The claim was heard in the Administrative Court on 30 and 31 October 2013.