Housiaux, R (On the Application Of) v Staffordshire Moorlands District Council

A planning authority may reach a different conclusion on a revised application where the proposal has materially changed. A difference from an earlier decision does not, without more, establish irrationality. The earlier decision must amount, in substance and reality, to a disagreement with the later decision, and any relevant distinction may remove the basis for comparison.

Separate applications must ordinarily be considered on their own terms. A later refusal does not necessarily make an earlier grant irrational, particularly where the later application is for a different form of permission and unresolved matters can be addressed through conditions or subsequent approval of details.

Where a committee adopts a detailed officer’s report and follows its recommendation, it may ordinarily give brief reasons by adopting the report. It need not answer every objection or set out each step in its reasoning.

The claimant, a local resident, sought judicial review of the decision of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council to grant outline planning permission for a revised scheme comprising up to 250 holiday lodges and leisure facilities at Moneystone Quarry.

An earlier version of the scheme had been refused, partly because of landscape and highway concerns, including traffic using local roads and inadequate sustainable transport measures. The revised scheme included changes to the layout, removal of development from Black Plantation, a proposed no-right-turn arrangement, highway works and travel-plan measures.

The claimant challenged the grant on two grounds. First, he alleged irrationality, failure to consider a material consideration and inadequate reasons because the Council later refused a separate full-planning application for the junction works. Secondly, he alleged that the Council failed to explain its different conclusion on sustainable transport.

1. Claim dismissed. The Council’s decisions were not irrational. The test for inconsistency, summarised in Pertemps Investments Limited v. SSCLG [2015] EWHC2308 (Admin), requires the later decision, in effect and reality, to amount to a disagreement with the earlier one. As explained by reference to North Wiltshire DC v. Secretary of State 65 P & C R 137, a relevant distinction between the decisions removes the necessary materiality.

2. The original and revised schemes were materially different. The revised application introduced, among other changes, a no-right-turn arrangement, alterations to the development layout and the removal of lodges from Black Plantation. It was a matter of planning judgment whether those changes answered the earlier objections. There was no stark, fundamental or serious inconsistency between refusing the original scheme and granting outline permission for the revised scheme.

3. The later refusal of the separate junction application did not make the grant irrational or constitute a material consideration requiring a different outcome. The applications concerned different forms of permission and had to be considered separately. Any remaining highway-safety concerns could be addressed through the conditions requiring approval of details for the no-right-turn arrangement and related works.

4. The Council was not required to give separate reasons for rejecting every objection. Applying R (Hawksworth Securities Plc) v. Peterborough CC [2016] EWHC 1870 (Admin), a planning committee’s reasons may briefly state the main reasons for the decision. Where it follows an officer’s recommendation, some explanation is required only if it departs from that recommendation: R v. Mendip DC [2000] 80 P&CR 500. The committee expressly adopted the detailed officer’s report, which adequately explained the revised scheme, the highway measures and the sustainable-transport assessment.

5. The report could be read in a common-sense way, bearing in mind the committee’s local knowledge, consistently with Lawrence v. Fen Tigers Limited [2014] UKSC 13, Oxton Farms v. Selby DC [1997] EG 60 and R (Siraj) v. Kirklees MC [2010] EWCA Civ 1286. The claim was therefore dismissed.