Hampton Bishop Parish Council, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council

Planning decision-makers must identify and understand relevant development-plan policies and give proper regard to the plan’s statutory priority. They are not required to adopt a universally prescribed two-stage process of first deciding whether a proposal accords with the plan and then considering other material considerations. A proposal may accord with the development plan viewed as a whole even though it departs from individual policies, where that departure is justified within the plan’s own policies and parameters.

Financial viability may form part of the assessment of whether an alternative site is available. Enabling development is capable of being a material consideration where one part of a composite development financially supports another. The weight given to material considerations remains a matter for the planning decision-maker.

Hampton Bishop Parish Council sought judicial review of Herefordshire Council’s grant of outline planning permission for a new rugby facility outside Hereford, supported by 190 dwellings, including affordable housing. The permission followed two Planning Committee meetings at which officers had recommended refusal, principally because of landscape and policy concerns. The Parish Council challenged the decision on material-consideration, development-plan and environmental-information grounds. It argued that the Committee had unlawfully considered the transfer of the Rugby Club’s existing ground, enabling housing and facilities beyond those strictly necessary, had failed properly to apply relevant policies, and had not determined whether the proposal accorded with the development plan.

The central issues were whether the Committee had acted lawfully under the planning legislation and whether the environmental information was sufficient.

1. The claim was dismissed on all grounds. The court granted permission to proceed generally but refused the substantive application. Grounds 1B, 1C and 3 were unarguable; the remaining grounds were not made out.
2. The transfer of the Rugby Club’s existing ground was a material consideration. Under Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, regulation 122(2), a planning obligation must be directly related to the development. The connection need not be on-site or immediate. An off-site benefit qualifies where it is related to or connected with the development in a real, rather than fanciful or remote, way. On these facts, relocation made the existing ground available for continued community use, so the transfer was directly related.
3. The financial dependency of the sports facilities on the residential element was also material. Enabling development may be considered even where no express policy addresses the precise form of development. The Committee was entitled to accept the identified need for the proposed facilities and the evidence that 190 dwellings were required to fund them.
4. Economic viability could be considered when deciding whether a suitable urban site was “available” under UDP Policy RST10. A site with a higher competing use value, which could not realistically be acquired for the required sports use, might be unavailable in the real-world planning context.
5. The Committee substantially considered the relevant sporting, environmental and landscape policies. Its disagreement with the officers involved planning judgment rather than legal error. It was entitled to conclude that mitigation made the landscape impact acceptable.
6. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 did not require an express binary finding that the proposal accorded, or did not accord, with the development plan. The decision-maker must engage with relevant policies, properly understood and viewed as a whole, and respect the plan’s statutory priority. A one-stage assessment may be lawful, particularly where policies and material considerations are interwoven.
7. The environmental statement was sufficient. The reduction from 250 to 190 dwellings and the continued existing use of the former ground did not identify any additional significant environmental effects requiring further information.