Law v Essex County Council

Policy ENV1 required a two-stage assessment of development on unallocated greenfield land outside settlement boundaries. The decision-maker had first to determine whether the development was acceptable in principle, including whether it was needed in, or compatible with, a rural location. It then had to assess the proposal against the policy’s environmental and other criteria.

A planning officer’s report must be read as a whole and in a commonsense manner. Judicial review is justified only where the report’s overall effect significantly misleads the committee about material matters which remain uncorrected. The court will not review the planning merits or the weight given to material considerations.

The claimant, a resident adjacent to the proposed development site and a member of the Fernlea Residents’ Action Group, challenged the defendant local planning authority’s grant of permission for a primary school and early years centre.

The authority was also the local education authority and had identified an urgent need for additional school places in the relevant catchment area. The challenge concerned whether the officer’s report and addendum significantly misled the planning committee about the proper interpretation and application of Colchester Borough Council Core Strategy Policy ENV1.

The central issues were whether the policy imposed a two-stage approach, whether the report adequately addressed the need for a rural location and the policy’s environmental criteria, and whether any error justified quashing the permission.

1. The claim was dismissed. The officer’s report did not significantly mislead the planning committee, and the planning permission was not quashed.
2. Planning policy had to be interpreted objectively according to its language and proper context. Whether a matter was material was a question of law, but the weight given to a material consideration was a matter of planning judgment for the decision-maker. Judicial review was not an opportunity to review the planning merits of the decision.
3. Policy ENV1 imposed a two-stage process. First, the authority had to decide whether the proposed development was acceptable in principle under the policy. Second, it had to consider whether the proposal satisfied the seven stated criteria, including the protection, conservation or enhancement of landscape and townscape character.
4. The site was outside the settlement boundary and therefore rural for the purposes of the policy. The evidence established a clear need for additional school provision in the relevant catchment, and no suitable alternative site within the settlement boundary was available. The development was therefore needed in, and compatible with, a rural location. The first stage was satisfied.
5. The report adequately addressed the environmental effects. It considered the loss and replacement of trees, landscaping, biodiversity, the open character of the area, and relevant planning policies. Although it did not expressly refer to the Landscape Character Assessment, the omission did not significantly mislead informed committee members. The issues were fairly placed before them.
6. The court also observed, if necessary, that the claimant’s delay, the progress of construction, third-party reliance, financial expenditure and the need to provide school places would have supported exercising discretion not to quash. It further considered that any error would probably have led to the same decision on redetermination.