World Society for the Protection of Animals v Welsh Ministers & Ors

A planning decision-maker must take into account all material considerations and interpret planning policy correctly. The weight given to material considerations is ordinarily a matter of planning judgment, subject to statutory requirements and irrationality. Where development affects a listed building or its setting, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, section 66(1), requires considerable importance and weight to be given to preserving the building or setting. That statutory status does not make harm incapable of being outweighed by sufficiently strong countervailing benefits. A challenge under section 288 is not a review of planning merits. The decision letter must be read fairly and as a whole, and need only give sufficient reasons to show how the principal controversial issues were resolved.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the Welsh Ministers’ decision to grant planning permission for a substantial dairy development at Lower Leighton Farm. The Inspector had recommended refusal because of harm to the landscape and the settings of listed buildings and other heritage assets. The Minister accepted that harm but gave greater weight than the Inspector to the proposed economic and operational benefits and concluded that they outweighed the objections.

The claimant alleged failure to take material considerations into account, misapplication of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, irrationality and inadequate reasons.

1. Application dismissed. None of the four grounds of challenge was made out.
2. A planning decision-maker must take into account all material considerations and interpret planning policy correctly. The weight given to those considerations is ordinarily a matter of planning judgment. The court must not substitute its own assessment of planning merits.
3. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 required the Minister to give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings and their settings. The Minister expressly recognised that obligation and the considerable harm identified by the Inspector. He was nevertheless entitled to conclude that the economic and operational benefits outweighed that harm.
4. The Minister was entitled to rely on credible projections of employment, investment and increased milk production, even though some benefits were uncertain or incapable of precise calculation. He was not required to treat the jobs as limited to local residents, or to consider public benefits that were not relied upon.
5. The irrationality threshold in a planning challenge is particularly high, especially where the decision involves expert assessment and planning judgment. There was no legal requirement for the Minister personally to visit the site, particularly since he accepted the Inspector’s site-based assessment of the heritage harm.
6. The reasons were adequate. The decision letter, read as a whole and practically, made clear that the Minister accepted the heritage harm but differed from the Inspector on the weight of the benefits and considered them sufficient to outweigh that harm. A section 288 claim cannot be used as a merits review.

First-instance statutory challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The application to quash the Welsh Ministers’ planning decision was dismissed.