Felicity Irving, R (on the application of) v Mid Sussex District Council

A local planning authority must consider every relevant development-plan policy and assess the proposal against the plan as a whole. Policies addressing settlement hierarchy do not displace separate countryside-protection policies where the proposal is a house outside the built-up area.

An officer’s report is unlawful if, read fairly, it materially misleads the committee about the relevant policies or the planning balance. A planning authority should consider its previous similar decisions. It may depart from them only for rational reasons which are briefly explained. In a conservation area, harm must receive considerable importance and weight, but the court should not substitute its own planning judgment unless irrationality is established.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Council’s decision to grant itself planning permission for a large dwelling on an open greenfield site at Courtmead Road, Cuckfield. The site lay outside the built-up area and partly within the Cuckfield Conservation Area.

She alleged that the Council failed to consider Policies DP12 and DP15 of the Mid Sussex District Plan, materially misled its Planning Committee through the officer’s report, assessed the public benefits of a single dwelling inconsistently with earlier decisions, and reached an irrational planning balance. The central issues were whether the omitted policies were relevant, whether the report was materially misleading, and whether the assessment of public benefit was lawfully justified.

1. Ground 1 succeeded. Policies DP12 and DP15 applied directly to the proposal because the site was countryside under the development plan. They were interrelated with Policy DP6 and had to be considered together. DP12 required assessment of whether the development maintained or, where possible, enhanced the rural and landscape character of the district, by reference to the evidence identified in that policy. DP15 required both compliance with DP12 and special justification, which could include satisfaction of DP6.
2. The officer’s report was seriously misleading. Its list of relevant policies omitted DP12 and DP15, and its conclusion that the application complied with the development plan when read as a whole failed to address them. The matters covered by DP12 and DP15 were not adequately addressed through DP6 and Policy CNP5. Their application could have altered the planning balance.
3. Ground 2 succeeded. A planning authority should have regard to previous similar decisions in the interests of consistency. It may depart from them for rational reasons, which should be briefly explained, and should take reasonable steps to identify such decisions. The Council’s earlier assessments described the public benefits of one dwelling as very limited, whereas the present report described clear economic benefits without explaining the departure. The inconsistency was material because public benefits were critical in the conservation-area balance.
4. Ground 3 failed. The assessment of the relative weight of the public benefits and conservation harm was a planning judgment. Although conservation-area harm attracts considerable importance and weight, the high threshold for irrationality was not met.
5. The claim for judicial review was granted on grounds 1 and 2. The planning permission was quashed.