Hayes, R (on the application of) v Wychavon District Council & Anor

A planning authority must understand development plan policies objectively, while retaining evaluative judgment in their application. Its inquiry is legally inadequate only where no reasonable authority could regard the available material as sufficient.

An officer’s report is read practically and against the decision-maker’s knowledge. Drafting errors do not invalidate the decision unless the report’s overall effect significantly misleads the decision-maker on a material matter. Conditions may lawfully reserve details for later approval where they are necessary, reasonable, enforceable, precise and relevant. Fairness does not ordinarily require renewed consultation at that approval stage where objections to the subject matter were received during the application.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant council’s grant of planning permission for an agricultural building intended to shelter goats and chickens and store agricultural equipment. He lived near the site and alleged that the council had made insufficient inquiries, misunderstood or failed to apply relevant development plan policies, and failed to consider the consequences of omitting a condition restricting livestock.

The disputed matters concerned livestock numbers, waste and drainage, highways and traffic, and the building’s location. The court also considered whether identified contradictions in the planning officer’s delegated report undermined the decision and whether details of drainage and manure disposal could lawfully be reserved for approval under conditions.

1. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The council had made lawful planning judgments on the material available and had not misunderstood the relevant development plan policies.

2. A planning authority must proceed on a proper and objective understanding of the development plan. The meaning of policy is a question of law, but applying broad or competing policies to particular facts commonly requires planning judgment. Such judgment is reviewable only for irrationality or perversity. The relevant statutory framework was section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, read with sections 70 and 72 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3. A planning authority must take reasonable steps to acquaint itself with information relevant to its decision. The authority ordinarily determines the manner and intensity of its inquiry. A court may intervene for insufficient inquiry only where the inquiry was so inadequate that no reasonable planning authority could suppose it had sufficient material to decide the application and impose conditions.

4. An officer’s report is not a decision letter and must not be subjected to excessively legalistic textual analysis. It may assume the decision-maker’s knowledge of planning law, policy and local circumstances and need not reproduce every relevant detail. Its author must nevertheless ensure that its overall effect does not significantly mislead the decision-maker about material matters. That approach applied, with appropriate modification, where a senior officer exercised delegated authority.

5. The officer had enough information to assess the agricultural building’s likely effects on amenity and traffic. The agricultural use of the land already permitted livestock and poultry without restrictions on type or number. The council could rationally conclude that a condition limiting animals using the open-fronted shelter would be unreasonable and impracticable to enforce.

6. The council lawfully dealt with manure disposal and foul and surface-water drainage through pre-use and pre-development conditions. Conditions may reserve specified details for later approval where the statutory power and applicable guidance permit that course. Neither the legislation, the guidance nor common law fairness required a further consultation stage before approval of those details, although the council should consider objections already made.

7. The report contained contradictory passages about the suitability of existing buildings and the proposed location. They were drafting errors caused by reusing text from the earlier report. They did not materially mislead the authorised officer or ward councillor, whose knowledge and the report’s operative conclusions made the council’s position clear. In any event, remittal would have served no purpose because the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

not stated in the judgment.