North Norfolk Planning Watch Ltd, R (on the application of) v McIntyre & Thrower

A planning committee’s decision will not be unlawful merely because an officer’s report does not reproduce every piece of evidence or because an application uses an inappropriate form. The relevant question is whether the material supplied, read as a whole, enabled an informed decision on the statutory and policy criteria. A different form may satisfy the statutory requirements if the form and supporting documents are substantially to the same effect as the prescribed form. Members may rely on their own site inspection and on oral updates concerning late information, provided they are not materially misled or unfairly deprived of an opportunity to consider the issue. Planning judgment and the weight given to material considerations remain matters for the decision-maker. A condition reserving approval of materials may address both present and future visual appropriateness.

The claimant sought judicial review of North Norfolk District Council’s decision to grant planning permission for demolition of an unlisted dwelling in a conservation area and its replacement by a modern dwelling using Corten steel. Permission to bring the claim was granted by Collins J on the papers.

The claim alleged that the wrong application form had been used; that the committee had insufficient information about demolition and the building’s heritage value; that local-listing issues had been inadequately considered; and that the committee had failed to comply with its conservation-area duties when considering the proposed materials.

1. Application form. Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires the form designed for the type of application, but also permits a form to substantially the same effect. The completed standard form, together with the design and access statement and ecology report, supplied the information required about the demolition and its justification. The planning authority therefore had jurisdiction and any procedural legitimate expectation was satisfied.
2. Information before the committee. The report had to be read as a whole and addressed an informed committee. The members’ site inspection enabled them to assess the building’s condition and contribution to the conservation area. No separate assessment that the building was beyond economic repair was required. The relevant heritage policies applied to the possible harm caused to designated heritage assets, not directly to the demolition of the unlisted dwelling itself.
3. Local listing and late information. Local listing arose as part of determining the planning application. The conservation officer was authorised to assess the building against the local-listing criteria and advise the committee; Cabinet ratification would have been required only if inclusion had been recommended. A further consultation exercise was unnecessary because the late material did not materially change the application or introduce issues which officers had not considered. The committee was not ambushed or materially misled.
4. Design and materials. The committee had been directed to the statutory duty to pay special attention to preserving or enhancing the conservation area. It was entitled to accept the officers’ planning judgment that the proposed Corten steel would not cause harm, subject to a condition requiring approval of samples. The expression visually appropriate included future appearance and weathering. The claim was dismissed.

First-instance judicial review. The judgment records that Collins J granted permission to bring the claim on the papers on 24 May 2017.