Thompson & Ors v Conwy County Borough Council (Rev 1)

Planning policies must be interpreted as practical policy instruments, read in context and in light of their purpose. The court determines the meaning of policy, while the decision-maker applies it to the facts and attributes weight. A policy safeguarding community facilities against loss may be engaged only when the proposal would leave the settlement without a facility of the relevant type, rather than whenever the replacement facility is of inferior quality. An officer’s report is read as a whole and in a common-sense manner for an informed planning committee. It is unlawful only if its overall effect significantly misleads members about material considerations. Later evidence does not ordinarily establish that officers misled members if the report accurately reflected the information available when the decision was made.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant council’s decision to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of the Fair View Inn in Llanddulas. The proposed development included conversion of the inn and construction of 24 flats. Permission was challenged on two grounds.

1. The claimant argued that policy CFS/6 of the Conwy Local Development Plan required a qualitative comparison between the Fair View Inn and the remaining public house in the village.
2. She argued that the planning committee had been misled about the proposed use of an education contribution and the prospect of a new school.

The central issues were the proper interpretation of policy CFS/6 and whether the committee had been materially misled by the officers’ report or presentation.

Claim dismissed. Both grounds of challenge failed.

1. Interpretation of planning policy. The meaning of a planning policy is a question of law for the court. Its application to the facts and the weight to be given to policy considerations are matters for the decision-maker. Planning policy should be interpreted in its practical context and consistently with its planning purpose, rather than as if it were a statute or contract. The policy must be read in the context of the wider policy framework and its objectives, while keeping interpretation distinct from factual application and judgment.
2. Policy CFS/6. The phrase “no similar facilities” referred to facilities of a similar type to those listed in the policy, including public houses. It did not require a comparison of the quality, size, facilities or trading style of the facility proposed to be lost with those remaining. The policy’s purpose was to prevent a community being left without a facility of the relevant type and thereby forced to travel elsewhere. Requiring a qualitative comparison would create uncertainty and impose assessments involving matters beyond the control of the planning system. Since another public house remained in Llanddulas, policy CFS/6 was not engaged.
3. Officer advice. Where members follow officers’ recommendation, they may be taken to have adopted the reasoning in the report and presentation. The report must be read as a whole, for an informed planning committee, and in a common-sense manner. The relevant question is whether its overall effect significantly misled members about material considerations. The education advice accurately reflected the information available at the time. The later correspondence did not materially alter that position and did not show that the committee had been misled.
4. The court therefore found no unlawful misinterpretation of policy and no misleading advice. The claim was dismissed. The judge expressed a preliminary view that the claimant’s costs liability should be capped at £792.03, subject to further written submissions.

Not stated in the judgment. This was a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court.