Evans, R (on the application of) v Johnson & Ors

In a prior-notification procedure under Part 6 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, the local planning authority considers whether the proposed development is permitted development and whether prior approval of specified details is required. It does not determine the principle of development under ordinary planning controls.

The authority must consider the proposal’s likely effect on the surrounding landscape, including listed buildings and their settings, archaeological interests and recognised nature-conservation sites, while weighing the operational needs of agriculture and forestry. The procedure is summary. A concise report may suffice, and there is no general statutory duty to give reasons for deciding that prior approval is unnecessary. Judicial review succeeds only if the authority failed to consider a material matter or reached an irrational conclusion.

The claimant sought judicial review of Cornwall Council’s decisions that prior approval was not required for two agricultural developments at Keveral Farm: two polytunnels and a mushroom barn. The site was close to Keveral Barton House, a Grade II* listed building, and archaeological interests.

The claimant alleged that the Council had failed to consider the effect of the proposals on the listed building’s setting and on archaeological interests, and had failed to give adequate reasons. The central issues were the scope of the Part 6 prior-notification procedure and whether the Council’s reports and evidence demonstrated lawful consideration of the relevant matters.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Council lawfully decided that prior approval was not required for the proposed polytunnels and mushroom barn.
2. Under Article 3 and Part 6 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, the development remained permitted development if the relevant conditions were met. The prior-notification procedure was confined to deciding whether prior approval of siting, design and external appearance was required. The principle of development and ordinary planning issues were not for determination.
3. Annex E to PPG7 was a material consideration. The authority had to consider the likely effect on the surrounding landscape, including visual amenity, listed buildings and their settings, archaeological sites and recognised nature-conservation sites. It also had to weigh those matters against the operational needs of agriculture and forestry and the need to avoid unnecessary or excessively costly requirements.
4. The procedure was summary. The absence of express references in the reports to Keveral Barton House or archaeological interests did not establish that those matters had been ignored. The applications identified the relevant issues, Annex E was referred to, and the officer’s evidence showed that the matters had been considered.
5. There was no requirement to give reasons for a decision whether to require details for prior approval. The principles concerning reasons in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) were therefore not directly applicable. In any event, the Council’s response and evidence supplied detailed reasons for the assessment.
6. The Council’s conclusion was rational. The mushroom barn was small and shielded by existing buildings, while the polytunnels were small, more than 70 metres from the listed building’s grounds, and included a replacement structure. No reasonable likelihood of harm to archaeological interests was shown.