Oxton Farm, R (on the application of) v Harrogate Borough Council & Anor

A planning officer’s report must be read fairly and as a whole. The court asks whether it seriously misled the committee on a matter bearing on the decision; minor errors do not invalidate the decision.

A consideration is legally required only where the statute expressly or impliedly requires it to be taken into account. A matter is not necessarily material merely because it could have affected the planning judgment. Where a later planning figure does not realistically affect the statutory or policy issue before the authority, its omission is not unlawful.

A common-law duty to give reasons for granting planning permission arises only in particularly strong circumstances, such as substantial public opposition, a major departure from important policy, or departure from officers’ advice.

Harrogate Borough Council granted outline planning permission for 21 dwellings and a village shop at Bickerton. Oxton Farm sought judicial review on three grounds.

1. The Council allegedly failed to consider newly published 2016-based Office for National Statistics household projections and their effect on housing land supply and the currency of local policies.
2. The officer’s report allegedly proceeded on the basis that the Council lacked a five-year housing land supply.
3. The Council allegedly failed to give reasons for granting permission.

The claim was heard on the assumption that Oxton Farm had standing. The central issues were whether the report materially misled the Planning Committee, whether the ONS data was a legally material consideration, and whether special circumstances required reasons for the decision.

1. Claim dismissed. The court considered the claim on the assumption that Oxton Farm had standing and did not finally determine standing.
2. Following R (Watermead Parish Council) v Aylesbury Vale District Council [2018] PTSR 43, an officer’s report must be read with reasonable benevolence and as a whole. The question is whether the advice seriously misled the committee on a matter bearing upon its decision. On a fair reading, the report advised that Harrogate had 5.02 years’ housing land supply, that the tilted balance was not engaged on that basis, and that it was engaged because policies SG1–3 were out of date. Ground 2 therefore failed.
3. The principles concerning material considerations were drawn from Bolton MBC v Secretary of State for the Environment (1991) 61 P & CR 343 and DLA Delivery Ltd v Baroness Cumberlege [2018] PTSR 2063. A consideration is required only if the statute expressly or impliedly identifies it as legally obligatory. The ONS data was not material to housing land supply because the Council already had more than five years’ supply without it. Nor was it fundamental to whether policies SG1–3 remained out of date. The draft local plan was to be examined under the NPPF 2012, which used a different housing-need methodology. Ground 1 failed.
4. The common-law principles on reasons explained in R (CPRE Kent) v Dover CC [2018] 1 WLR 108 did not require reasons here. Unlike R (Oakley) v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2017] 1 WLR 3765, this was a routine planning decision, there was no evidence of widespread controversy or significant and lasting community impact, and the committee had followed the officer’s recommendation. Ground 3 failed.
5. The claim was dismissed.