Oates, R (on the application of) v Wealden District Council & Anor

On a renewed application for permission to appeal a planning decision, no arguable error of law was established. A planning committee may rely on a full officer’s report and make a planning judgment about highway mitigation, including the relationship between planning obligations, the Community Infrastructure Levy regime and highway works. A deferred committee item need not be rehearsed in identical detail if the report and presentation adequately address it. Failure by some members to attend a formal site visit is not, without more, an error of law. For an appropriate assessment concerning a European site, final drainage details are not necessarily required where realistic potential solutions are identified and conditions require approval and completion of the works.

The claimant sought permission to appeal against Wealden District Council’s grant of planning permission for approximately 390 houses. The proposed development raised issues concerning highway capacity and mitigation, a deferred planning committee meeting, members’ attendance at a formal site visit, and foul drainage affecting the Pevensey Levels European site. The central issue was whether any of the four proposed grounds disclosed an arguable error of law.

1. The highway authority initially objected but later withdrew its objections after considering the interaction between the Community Infrastructure Levy regime and possible highway funding. The officer’s report addressed traffic effects, junction improvements, available funding and development timing. Whether the mitigation was sufficient was a planning judgment for the committee. Disagreement with that judgment did not disclose an arguable legal error.
2. The local authority’s Code of Good Practice did not require every issue to be rehearsed at the second meeting with the same detail as at the first. The comprehensive report and presentation provided an adequate basis for the committee. The meeting was not shown to have been unlawfully conducted merely because two voting members had not attended the earlier meeting.
3. Attendance at the formal site visit might have been good practice, but no issue or detail was identified that had not been dealt with at the second meeting. The non-attendance of four, or possibly six, members therefore did not arguably amount to an error of law on the facts.
4. The officer’s report recognised the capacity problem at Hailsham South Wastewater Treatment Works and identified two potential solutions: an upgrade or a private package treatment plant. Conditions required approval of foul drainage details before development and completion of the approved works before occupation. Final package-treatment details were not required at the permission stage.

Permission to appeal was refused. The existing costs order was left undisturbed.

The judgment records a renewed application for permission to appeal against the grant of planning permission by Wealden District Council. No citation for an earlier judicial decision is stated. The application was refused by the Administrative Court.