Miles, R (On the Application Of) v Tonbridge And Malling Borough Council

Planning officers’ reports must be read fairly and as a whole, with reasonable benevolence. Judicial review is justified only where the report’s overall effect significantly misleads the decision-maker about a material matter and the error remains uncorrected. Minor omissions or imprecise wording do not suffice where the report elsewhere gives accurate guidance.

A local planning authority may advise members about the risk of appeal costs, but that risk, and any reputational consequence, must not influence planning judgment. Whether a policy is out of date is ordinarily a matter of fact or fact and judgment. The weight given to a material policy is for the decision-maker, subject to legal rationality and adequate reasons.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Council’s decision to grant a personal, permanent planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a traveller site in the Green Belt.

He alleged that the officers’ reports misdirected the planning committee and full council concerning Green Belt harm, very special circumstances, traveller planning policy, temporary permissions, emerging local-plan policy, appeal costs, and the status of countryside policy CP14. The central issue was whether the reports, read fairly as a whole, materially misled the decision-makers or caused them to take account of immaterial considerations.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court applied the principles in R v Selby DC ex parte Oxton Farms [2017] PTSR 1103 and R (Watermead Parish Council) v Aylesbury Vale DC [2017] EWCA Civ 152. An officer’s report is not to be subjected to undue textual rigour. The question is whether its overall effect significantly misled members on a material matter, with the error uncorrected before the decision.
2. The reports adequately identified Green Belt harm, the need for very special circumstances, and the relevant policy in paragraphs 16 and 24 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites and paragraph 144 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Isolated omissions, including the word “clearly” and the use of “great” rather than “substantial”, did not materially mislead members.
3. The guidance on temporary permissions was not misunderstood. Under section 72 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a further temporary permission will rarely be justified, but that guidance did not positively support a permanent permission. The reports separately addressed whether a permanent permission was justified by very special circumstances.
4. The officer was entitled to conclude that emerging policy LP38 attracted limited weight, and that policy CP14 was out of date, having regard to previous appeal decisions and the circumstances of the plan. The report nevertheless recognised conflict with CP14 and addressed the weight to be given to it. Weight was a matter for the decision-maker, subject to rationality and adequate reasons.
5. The Council was entitled to advise members about the risk of an adverse costs award under its constitutional arrangements. However, such financial or reputational risks would have been unlawful considerations if they had influenced planning judgment. On the evidence, they formed no part of the planning analysis.

The claim was therefore dismissed.