XY, R (on the application of) v Maidstone Borough Council & Anor

Planning permission may be quashed where an officer’s report significantly misleads the planning committee about a material matter and there is a real possibility that the information would have affected the decision. The court must distinguish legal relevance from planning weight: the former is reviewable, while the latter is ordinarily for the planning authority. A report is read fairly and as a whole, having regard to its knowledgeable readership. In environmental impact assessment cases, separate applications are not one project merely because they concern nearby sites or members of the same community. The relevant question is whether they form an integral part of a single, more substantial development.

The claimant sought judicial review of Maidstone Borough Council’s decision to grant retrospective planning permission for a caravan, touring caravan and utility shed on the Blossom site at Staplehurst. The site formed part of a wider area containing other traveller sites, some unauthorised and others subject to temporary or personal permissions.

The challenge alleged failures to address the planning status of nearby sites, an earlier caravan-number condition, the applicant’s gypsy status, sustainability evidence for the emerging local plan, and environmental impact assessment requirements. The central issues were whether the committee had been materially misled and whether the application formed part of a Schedule 2 project requiring screening.

1. Ground 1 succeeded. The officer’s report relied on the prevalence of nearby gypsy and traveller sites to conclude that the proposal caused no further material harm to rural character. It did not tell the committee that three nearby sites were unauthorised and that another had only a personal permission. Those matters were material because the area’s character might change through enforcement action or expiry of temporary permission. The omission significantly misled the committee on a key issue, and there was a real possibility of a different decision, including temporary permission. The permission was therefore quashed.
2. The court adopted the principles summarised in R (oao Nicholson) v Allerdale Borough Council [2015] EWHC 2510 (Admin). An officer’s report is read fairly and as a whole. The court reviews whether a consideration is legally relevant, but the weight given to it is a matter of planning judgment. A report need not contain excessive detail, but it must not significantly mislead the committee about material matters.
3. Under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the authority had to consider relevant material considerations. A matter is material where there is a real possibility that taking it into account would have led to a different conclusion. The court did not accept that the omission concerning the earlier caravan-number condition crossed the threshold, since the committee had sufficient information and had inspected the site.
4. The committee was entitled to rely on the officer’s acceptance that the applicant was a gypsy. The inquiry was not so inadequate that no reasonable authority could regard the available material as sufficient. The court also held that the sustainability evidence did not materially mislead the committee, given the existing permission and the poor accessibility of most comparable sites.
5. For environmental impact assessment purposes, the relevant project must be identified broadly, but separate sites are not one project unless they are properly regarded as an integral part of a more substantial development. The nearby applications were independently controlled, were not integral to one another, and did not collectively constitute a Schedule 2 project. That ground failed.
6. The court declined to withhold relief under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. It was not highly likely that the outcome would have been substantially the same had the omitted information been provided.

This was a first-instance judicial review. Permission was granted by Collins J on 15 October 2015. The claim was allowed on Ground 1 and the planning permission was quashed.