Travis Perkins (Properties) Ltd v Westminster City Council & Ors

Planning officers’ reports must be read fairly and as a whole, with reasonable benevolence. The court asks whether the report materially misled the decision-maker on an issue which could have affected the outcome. Internal alterations to an unlisted building may be outside planning control, but their effect can still be relevant when assessing the harm of a development that requires permission. In relation to a non-designated heritage asset, NPPF paragraph 135 requires the effect on the asset’s significance to be taken into account, neither more nor less. A report need not use particular words or refer expressly to every policy, provided it substantively assesses the relevant harm and benefits.

Travis Perkins sought judicial review of Westminster City Council’s grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of a timber yard at Pimlico Road. The claimant argued that the planning committee’s report failed to address the harm to the yard’s fabric and historic use, the loss of the local timber and builders’ merchants service, Policy S25 of the Westminster City Plan, and NPPF paragraph 135.

The authority and Grosvenor accepted that the matters were material considerations, but submitted that the report dealt with them sufficiently when read fairly as a whole. The central issue was whether the committee had properly considered the significance and harm associated with the yard and its use.

1. The claim was dismissed. The challenge failed on all three grounds.
2. Following the principles summarised in Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling District Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 and St Modwen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & others [2017] EWCA Civ 1643, an officer’s report should not be read with undue rigour or dissected laboriously. The question is whether, on a fair reading as a whole, it materially misled the committee on a matter bearing on its decision. Intervention requires a material defect which could have made a difference to the outcome.
3. The effect of the application on the significance of the yard as a non-designated heritage asset had to be taken into account under NPPF paragraph 135, but nothing more and nothing less was required. The report acknowledged the yard’s significance, historic use and local service, assessed the effect of the works, and identified the relevant development benefits.
4. The fact that internal alterations to an unlisted building were outside planning control was relevant to assessing their harm. It did not make the matters irrelevant. Consistently with R (Khodari) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 333, the report could explain the significance or extent of the harm and weigh it against countervailing benefits.
5. The report’s references to the conservation area, rather than separate emphasis on the non-designated asset, did not invalidate the decision. It was entitled to explain that planning protection concerned the Class A1 retail use, not the identity of particular retail occupiers. Although the report could have expressed the balancing exercise more explicitly, its fair reading showed sufficient engagement and did not materially mislead the committee.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. No earlier appellate decision is stated in the judgment.