Holder, R (on the application of) v Gedling Borough Council & Ors

For transitional wind-energy applications, “addressed” planning impacts means sufficiently addressed, not eliminated or resolved. A local planning authority may consider mitigation, screening and countervailing benefits, together with the seriousness and weight of objections. It may conclude that a proposal has local backing where the balance of opinion in the community as a whole is favourable. Unanimity is unnecessary, and the most vehement objectors are not the arbiters of community opinion. The relevant community is fact-sensitive and may include people who made no representations. The written ministerial statement must be read with the wider renewable-energy planning framework.

Gedling Borough Council granted planning permission for a wind turbine on Green Belt land. A local objector brought judicial review proceedings on seven grounds. Green J dismissed the challenge, including the ground alleging that the Council had misinterpreted a written ministerial statement on wind-energy development: [2016] EWHC 3095 (Admin).

Permission to appeal was granted on that ground alone. The planning application had been lodged before the statement was issued, so the transitional provision applied. The central issue was whether planning impacts were “addressed” only when eliminated or resolved, or whether they could be sufficiently addressed through mitigation and the planning balance so that the proposal could be regarded as having local backing.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Council was lawfully entitled, in the exercise of its planning judgment, to conclude that the balance of opinion in the local community was favourable to the proposal.
2. Meaning of “addressed”. The court determines the proper interpretation of planning policy. In the transitional provision of the statement, “addressed” means sufficiently addressed. It does not require every adverse planning impact identified by an objector to be eliminated or resolved. The authority may take account of mitigation, screening, careful siting and countervailing benefits. The ordinary planning process commonly requires benefits to be weighed against incommensurable detriments.
3. Local community backing. The statement does not prescribe the relevant local community. Its composition depends on the facts and the planning judgment of the local planning authority. The authority must assess the likely balance of opinion in the community as a whole, including reasonable members of the public who made no representations. It may consider the number, weight and significance of objections, the seriousness of the impacts, and the effectiveness of mitigation. A favourable balance may exist although some impacts remain and some residents remain opposed.
4. Wider policy context. The statement was additional guidance and was not intended to displace the wider renewable-energy policies in section 10 of the NPPF. It was a material consideration for the purposes of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, capable of outweighing development-plan policy. The contrast between the transitional wording and the stronger requirement that impacts be “fully addressed” for later applications supported the court’s interpretation. The appeal therefore failed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the appeal concerning the interpretation of the written ministerial statement: [2018] EWCA Civ 214.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court — Green J dismissed the judicial review challenge on all seven grounds: [2016] EWHC 3095 (Admin).