Pagham Parish Council v Arun District Council

A planning officer’s report is not unlawful merely because it omits information or gives limited reasons. The question is whether, read fairly and as a whole, it significantly misleads the decision-maker about a material matter, or fails to direct attention to a mandatory legal duty.

Impact on a listed building or its setting is not synonymous with harm. Whether harm exists, and its degree, are matters of planning judgment for the local planning authority. A planning officer need not adopt an applicant’s heritage consultant’s opinion or explain why it is rejected, provided the assessment is rational and the statutory duty is addressed.

Arun District Council granted outline planning permission for development at Pagham South. Pagham Parish Council sought judicial review, alleging that the planning officer’s report failed to direct the Committee to its duty under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and materially misrepresented Historic England’s views.

The challenge concerned the proposed development’s effect on the setting of the Grade I listed Church of St Thomas à Becket. The Parish Council argued that the officer had misunderstood a heritage impact assessment which identified possible slight harm and had failed to explain why the consultant’s view was rejected. It also challenged the omission of a detail from Historic England’s site visit.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Committee had been directed to the relevant statutory duty and heritage policies, and the officer’s report, read fairly as a whole, did not create a substantially misleading impression.
2. The function of a planning officer’s report is to inform the planning committee of relevant considerations, including mandatory statutory considerations. The report is susceptible to challenge for omission only where the overall effect is materially misleading. Minor or inconsequential errors do not suffice. The court must avoid a hypercritical or excessively legalistic approach.
3. Under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, preserving a listed building or its setting means doing no harm. However, an impact is not necessarily harmful. The existence and degree of harm are matters of planning judgment for the local planning authority. If the authority rationally concludes that there is no harm, there is no harm requiring great weight in the balancing exercise.
4. The officer was entitled to consider, but not to accept, the heritage consultant’s opinion. Subject to rationality and mandatory statutory requirements, a planning officer may determine what weight to give expert material and is not obliged to give reasons for rejecting an opinion on a matter of planning judgment. Nor was the officer required to report every aspect of the consultant’s assessment.
5. The report fairly summarised the relevant heritage evidence, including the positive contribution made by views of the Church from the north and the limited effect of development from the footpath. Historic England had not objected and had left the assessment of any wider impact to the local planning authority. The omission of the inspector’s observation that she had walked along the footpath added nothing material and could not have misled the Committee.
6. The court considered, obiter, that even if the grounds had succeeded, relief would have been refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, since the permission would highly likely have been granted in any event.