Patel, R (On the Application Of) v Dacorum Borough Council

A planning authority must address a material consideration identified by the evidence and relevant policy. The risk that a proposal may cause the loss of an existing valued community facility, such as a Post Office, requires separate consideration where its viability depends on trade at an affected shop. Assessing the impact on a local centre as a whole does not necessarily address that issue. A planning officer’s report makes the decision unlawful if it materially misleads the committee by failing to address it and the committee might have reached a different conclusion. A report need not rehearse every objection where the substance has been addressed through the planning assessment. Consultation must occur while proposals remain formative and responses must be conscientiously considered, but they need not prevail.

The claimant sought judicial review of Dacorum Borough Council’s grant of planning permission for the change of use of premises at Richmond Square, Markyate, including a convenience store and residential flats. The claimant operated a competing Nisa Local store incorporating the village Post Office. Nine grounds were initially permitted; seven remained for determination, including alleged misinterpretation of retail and parking policies, failure to consider trade diversion, the risk to the Post Office and employment, legitimate expectation, and unfair consultation. The central issue was whether the planning officer’s report and the council’s decision-making process lawfully addressed the relevant planning policies and material considerations.

1. Outcome. The claim succeeded on ground 11. All other grounds failed.
2. Policy interpretation and officer’s report. Development-plan policies are interpreted objectively according to their language, context and purpose. The court must read a planning officer’s report fairly and as a whole. The relevant question is whether the report materially misled the committee on a matter bearing on its decision, such that the decision might have been different. The officer was entitled to treat the proposed store as small-scale retail, having recognised the gross size of the unit and relied on the confined 170 square metre sales area.
3. Retail impact. The officer considered the possibility of trade diversion from the High Street and concluded that, although the proposed store would compete with the existing Nisa Local, its overall effect on the village centre was likely to be positive. That was a planning judgment open to the authority.
4. Community facility. The existing Post Office was a valued community facility protected by policy CS23 and paragraph 92 of the NPPF. The officer’s focus on the village centre as a whole and on the benefits of the new store did not address the distinct risk that loss of trade at the Nisa Local might cause the Post Office to close. The report therefore materially misled the committee. There was at least a realistic possibility that the committee might have refused permission had that issue been addressed.
5. Other grounds. The report sufficiently addressed employment implications and applied the maximum parking standard as the starting point for progressive reductions. The consultation statements created, at most, an expectation that representations would be considered, not that the committee could not meet before the consultation period ended. The further representations were conscientiously considered and raised no new material matter. The evidence concerning the official minutes was admissible only to the extent that it did not contradict them.