Lyndon-Stanford v Mid Suffolk District Council

A planning committee’s decision may be unlawful where an officer’s report significantly misleads members about a material matter and the deficiency remains uncorrected. Reports must be read fairly and as a whole, but they must be clear and sufficiently complete to enable members to understand the relevant issues. A background document does not cure a defective summary merely because members could inspect it, absent evidence that they did so or that the deficiency was corrected. In assessing the optimum viable use of a listed building, a non-profitable proposal which would preserve the building may remain relevant, even if it is not itself a viable use. The decision-maker must fairly assess that alternative and its implications for the justification required for harmful conversion.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Council’s decision to grant planning permission and listed building consent for the conversion of listed farm buildings near Wingfield Castle into three dwellings and the demolition of modern structures. The claimant argued that the committee had been misled about the effect on the Castle’s setting, the history and significance of the farm buildings, the prospect of his acquiring and repairing them, deliberate neglect, and relevant representations. He also alleged failure to comply with statutory heritage duties and procedural unfairness. The central issue was whether the reports and committee process enabled a lawful and properly informed decision.

The claim succeeded because the reports significantly misled the committee about the history of the claimant’s efforts to acquire the barns and put them into repair.

1. Officer’s reports. A report need not reproduce all background material or contain elaborate citations. It must, however, be clear and sufficiently full to enable members to understand the issues and decide lawfully. It is read fairly and as a whole. A report which is otherwise materially defective is not saved merely because members could inspect a background document, unless there is evidence that they did so or that the deficiency was corrected.
2. Setting of the Castle. The reports made clear that the planning officer considered that the development would not harm the Castle’s setting, while also reporting the Heritage Team’s view that there would be less than substantial harm. The omission of a clearer account of Historic England’s and Professor Liddiard’s objections, and the imperfect presentation of Mr Alston’s report, did not invalidate the decision. The committee was told of the objection in principle to residential conversion, and no substantial difference in outcome was shown on that issue.
3. Future of the barns. The claimant’s proposal to acquire and repair the barns was relevant, even though it was not a profitable or viable use as defined in the national guidance. It potentially involved no harm to the listed buildings and could affect whether there was a clear and convincing justification for residential conversion. The reports wrongly implied that the claimant had repeatedly declined offers over ten years. In fact, the last alleged offer was in 2006 and the proposed sale had been withdrawn by the owners. The claimant’s brief oral representations did not cure that misleading impression.
4. The court was not satisfied that the outcome would probably have been the same under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The complaints concerning deliberate neglect and procedural unfairness were rejected. The Council’s failure to circulate the claimant’s objection and Professor Liddiard’s letter was undesirable but did not, in the circumstances, amount to unfairness.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The judgment does not state any subsequent appellate history.