Hawkhurst Parish Council, R (On the Application Of) v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Under paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the decision-maker must assess significant transport impacts and consider whether the residual cumulative impact on the road network would be severe. The assessment is fact-sensitive. The Framework does not require cumulative modelling for every development. The amount and form of technical information required depend on the scale and likely impact of the proposal, and a lighter-touch transport statement may be proportionate. A local planning authority may rely on the informed advice of the local highway authority, although the judgment remains its own. Planning policies must be interpreted in their statutory and planning context, including supporting text and the wider policy framework. An officer’s report is read fairly and with reasonable benevolence. The court interferes only where a material defect has misled the decision-maker or produced an unlawful public-law error.

Hawkhurst Parish Council sought judicial review of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s decision to grant planning permission for 43 retirement apartments at The White House, Hawkhurst, within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The challenge alleged that the Council had failed to assess cumulative highway impacts, had failed to consider Local Plan Policy EN4 concerning demolition of unlisted buildings contributing to conservation-area character, and had unlawfully concluded that exceptional circumstances justified major development in the AONB. The court considered the adequacy of the transport information, the interpretation of Policy EN4, and the lawfulness of the officer’s assessment of the AONB and heritage issues.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. Paragraphs 108 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework require the decision-maker to consider significant effects on transport capacity and congestion and to refuse on highways grounds only where the residual cumulative impacts, including proposed mitigation, would be severe. Whether an impact is severe is a judgment subject to ordinary public-law constraints.
2. The Framework does not prescribe a fixed level of modelling. A Transport Statement is a lighter-touch evaluation than a Transport Assessment, and the appropriate information depends on the scale, characteristics and likely transport effects of the proposal. The Council was entitled to conclude that the Transport Statement, including the very low predicted trip generation, site accessibility and proposed public-transport contribution, provided sufficient information without modelling every committed development.
3. The local highway authority’s view was a material consideration. The final judgment remained that of the Council, which was entitled to agree with KCC and decide what weight to give its advice. The alleged inconsistency between KCC’s treatment of this proposal and larger developments did not establish unlawfulness. Nor was the Council required to use the Golf Course application’s modelling as material to this proposal.
4. The Planning Committee had access to the Transport Statement, which was identified in the officer’s report and was not materially challenged. Even if the Committee had failed to consider the quantitative information in it, it was highly likely that the outcome would have been the same, so relief would in any event have been refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
5. Ground 2 dismissed. Policy EN4, read in context with its supporting text, Policy EN5, the former PPG15 framework and the statutory context existing when the Local Plan was adopted, applied to demolition of unlisted buildings in a conservation area. It did not apply to demolition of the White House, which was outside the conservation area.
6. Ground 3 dismissed. The officer’s report, read as a whole, identified multiple cumulative factors supporting exceptional circumstances under paragraph 172 of the NPPF, including housing need, Hawkhurst’s settlement status, the lack of suitable sustainably located alternatives outside the AONB, the site’s location and the balance between benefits and harm. Heritage effects were addressed elsewhere in the report and were included in the overall assessment. The claim was dismissed.