Stoke Poges Parish Council & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Technical noise guidance, including BS8233 and the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise, provides guidance rather than binding statutory or national noise limits. A planning decision-maker must understand and take that guidance into account, but may apply judgment to its meaning and relevance in the circumstances of the case. In a judicial review challenge, the court should not resolve technical disputes or substitute its own planning judgment. A Secretary of State may disagree with an inspector where the decision letter gives intelligible reasons addressing the material issues, including the character of the noise, its periodic nature, relevant thresholds and effects on residents’ quality of life.

Stoke Poges Parish Council and South Buckinghamshire District Council challenged the Secretary of State’s decision to grant prior approval for the conversion of office premises into a state-funded school. The challenges were brought under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and concerned the treatment of noise under Class T of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

An inspector recommended refusal because noise from the proposed school would materially harm neighbouring residents’ living conditions. The Secretary of State disagreed, treated the relevant noise levels as acceptable, and allowed the appeal. The central issues were whether he had misunderstood the technical guidance, failed to apply paragraph 123 of the NPPF and related noise guidance, acted irrationally, or failed to give adequate reasons.

1. The court granted permission on all four grounds but dismissed both substantive challenges.

2. BS8233 and the WHO Guidelines were technical guidance documents, not binding noise standards. The Secretary of State was required to understand them sufficiently to take them into account, but was entitled to adopt a broad and non-legalistic approach to their interpretation and application. The guidance permitted judgment as to the appropriate time period, threshold and significance of any exceedance.

3. The Secretary of State was entitled to treat the 5 dB relaxation in BS8233 as permitting adjustment of the internal target levels. He could therefore conclude that the predicted internal noise was acceptable or only marginally above the adjusted criteria. He was also entitled to use the 50 dB and 55 dB WHO values as guidance concerning annoyance from external noise, while recognising that they were guideline values only.

4. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF and the PPG required consideration of the effects of noise on the acoustic character of the area and residents’ quality of life. They did not prescribe numerical thresholds. The Secretary of State had considered the relevant matters, including the character and periodic nature of the school noise, the duration of higher noise levels, school holidays, ambient noise fluctuations, residents’ experience and the likely effect on use of their homes. He was entitled to reach a different evaluative conclusion from the inspector.

5. Judicial review was not a forum for resolving technical disputes about predicted noise levels or mitigation. The decision letter gave sufficient reasons for the Secretary of State’s disagreement with the inspector and left no genuine doubt as to what he had decided and why. The irrationality and reasons grounds therefore added nothing capable of establishing an error of law.