Whitehead (On Behalf of the Copthorne Village Association), R (On the Application Of) v Mid Sussex District Council

Development-plan policies which provide alternative methods of meeting an identified need do not give priority to one method unless their language does so. A local planning authority may therefore accept on-site provision or an equivalent financial contribution for suitable, available and achievable off-site provision, subject to the policy criteria.

An officer’s report must be read fairly and benevolently as a whole. It need not set out every evidential detail or enable committee members to reassess the planning merits independently, provided it does not materially mislead them. The public-sector equality duty is substantive, but it does not require a particular outcome. Compliance with specific policies directed to meeting the needs of a protected group may constitute the due regard required in the relevant planning context.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority’s decision to grant outline planning permission for up to 500 homes and associated development at Clayton Mills. The permission did not provide Gypsy and Traveller pitches on the site, but secured a £750,000 contribution towards off-site provision.

The challenge alleged that the officer’s report misinterpreted development-plan policies, failed to address material considerations concerning on-site provision and alternative sites, and failed to comply with section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Events concerning the availability of a proposed Copthorne site emerged after the hearing. The central issues were whether the report materially misled the planning committee and whether the authority had acted unlawfully in accepting off-site provision.

1. Claim dismissed. The officer’s report did not materially mislead the committee.
2. Policies DP9, DP10 and DP11 did not give priority to on-site Gypsy and Traveller pitches over an equivalent financial contribution towards off-site provision. Their language required the authority to consider both methods. The authority could therefore determine the application in accordance with the development plan by accepting either on-site provision or a financial contribution satisfying the stated criteria.
3. The allocation of land for listed purposes did not predetermine the acceptability of every proposal. Depending on the characteristics of a particular application, site constraints could be material. However, on the correct construction of DP11, officers were not required to identify a good reason for declining on-site provision. Even on the alternative sequential construction, the report adequately addressed the site constraints and the acceptability of off-site provision.
4. The report was not required to set out the detailed evidence underlying the officers’ planning judgment that the Copthorne site was suitable, available and achievable, or to explain the contractual arrangements in detail. It was sufficient that the report conveyed the relevant history, the preparation of a revised application and the officers’ professional assessment.
5. Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 did not require the authority to secure pitches on the Clayton Mills site or achieve any particular result. In this factual and policy context, compliance with the interlocking policies specifically directed to meeting the need of settled Gypsies and Travellers for culturally suitable housing constituted the due regard required. Express reference to section 149 in the report was unnecessary.
6. Paragraphs 10 and 13 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites were directed to plan-making, not the determination of this application. They were not material considerations in the circumstances. Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 therefore did not arise; if it had, the court would have regarded the claimant’s argument against refusing relief for substantiality as correct.