Austin, R (on the application of) v Haulfryn Group Ltd & Anor

A planning committee’s officer’s report must be read fairly and as a whole. Judicial review is warranted only where the report significantly misleads the committee on a material matter, or is insufficiently clear and full to enable an informed decision.

Policy CP39 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy treated extensions to existing tourist facilities as a discrete category. The criteria applicable to new development in the open countryside did not additionally apply. The proper construction of planning policy is a legal question, but whether a proposal amounts to a change of use, and the weight given to material considerations, are matters of planning judgment.

Where the decision-maker concludes that development causes no harm to a listed building’s setting, paragraph 134 of the NPPF is not engaged.

The claimant, representing local residents, sought judicial review of Wiltshire Council’s decision to grant planning permission for holiday lodges, touring units and camping pods at Brokerswood Country Park.

Three grounds were advanced: that the officer’s report misstated the extent of the existing planning permission; that it misinterpreted Policy CP39 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy; and that it failed to apply the statutory and policy protections for the setting of a Grade II listed church.

The central issues were whether the report materially misled the planning committee, whether the proposal was an extension of an existing tourist facility, and whether the report sufficiently addressed harm to the listed building and its setting.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The 2000 planning permission did not derogate from the 1998 permission in respect of the Western Paddock. The officer’s report and agenda supplement accurately explained the extent of the existing permission. The site visit, plans and presentation also made the proposed extension beyond the existing site clear. There was no realistic possibility that the committee had been materially misled.
2. Ground 2 dismissed. The authorised use was a caravan and camping site. The proposed holiday lodges were caravans within section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, as amended by section 13(1) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The proposal was therefore properly treated as an extension of an existing tourist facility. On the true construction of Policy CP39, the criteria for extensions in its penultimate paragraph were discrete. Criteria (i) and (ii), applicable to other exceptional countryside development, did not additionally apply.
3. Ground 3 dismissed. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires considerable importance and weight to be given to preserving a listed building and its setting. Nevertheless, the officer was entitled to conclude, on the report read fairly as a whole, that the proposal would cause no harm to the significance or setting of the Church. In that event, there was no occasion to apply paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
4. The claim was dismissed.

First-instance judicial review claim. The judgment records no prior appellate decision.