Thurston Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Mid Suffolk District Council & Anor.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals by the local planning authority and the developer against the High Court order which had quashed outline planning permission for up to 210 dwellings at Beyton Road, Thurston. The central legal question was whether planning officers had materially misled committee members about the correct interpretation of Policy 1 (Thurston Spatial Strategy) of the Thurston Neighbourhood Development Plan so as to render the grant of permission unlawful. The Court held that the challenge before the High Court conflated interpretation and application of Policy 1: the policy was not misinterpreted by officers and, on a fair reading of the officer's report and the committee transcript, officers did not materially mislead members. The court also concluded that the planning balance (including the "tilted balance" in paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework and the considerations under paragraph 14) had been correctly addressed by the authority. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and paragraphs 11 and 14 of the NPPF were central to the decision.

This was an appeal from the Planning Court (Timothy Mould QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) who had quashed outline planning permission for a housing-led development outside the Thurston settlement boundary ([2022] EWHC 352 (Admin)). The claimant, Thurston Parish Council, sought judicial review asserting that Mid Suffolk District Council's Planning Referrals Committee had been materially misled by officers about the effect of Policy 1 of the made Thurston Neighbourhood Development Plan and that, for that reason, the grant of permission was unlawful.

Nature of the claim:

• Judicial review of the grant of outline planning permission for up to 210 dwellings; relief sought included quashing the permission. The High Court had quashed the permission; the decision under review was that order.

Issues framed by the court:

• Ground 1: Whether the planning officers misinterpreted Policy 1 so as to have materially misled the Committee (a pure issue of legal interpretation vs. application).
• Ground 2: Whether the authority applied the "tilted balance" in paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF lawfully.
• Ground 3 (first appellant only): Whether paragraph 14 of the NPPF was applied correctly.

Facts and context: The application site lay outside the settlement boundary for Thurston but within the parish. The Neighbourhood Plan, made in October 2019, set a spatial strategy (Policy 1) focussing development within the settlement boundary while allowing limited exceptions; the district council's emerging Joint Local Plan sought additional housing allocations for Thurston. Officers prepared a comprehensive report recommending permission subject to s106 mitigation; it identified tension between the Neighbourhood Plan and the emerging plan and applied the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Court's reasoning (concise):

• The Court of Appeal emphasised the established distinction between interpretation of a planning policy (a question of law for the court) and the application of that policy (a planning judgment for the decision-maker). On a fair reading, the officer's report and oral advice did not misinterpret Policy 1; rather the matter was the legitimate exercise of planning judgment about how Policy 1 applied to the proposed development.
• The report had identified the relevant components of the development plan and made clear that the proposal conflicted with some adopted local plan policies, but set out material considerations (including significant highway benefits and the emerging Joint Local Plan allocation) that justified a permission under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The committee debated the issues and reached a narrowly divided, on-balance decision.
• Because the Court found no material misdirection on Policy 1, the Judge's conclusion that the "tilted balance" analysis was infected by that error was rejected; the Court held the officer's analysis of paragraph 11(d) was correct. For similar reasons the first appellant's complaint as to paragraph 14 did not succeed.

The appeals were therefore allowed and the High Court's order quashing the permission was set aside.

Appeals allowed. The Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court had erred in finding that planning officers had materially misinterpreted Policy 1 of the Thurston Neighbourhood Development Plan and had misled committee members. The officer report and oral advice were properly read as applying policy in a way that involved planning judgment rather than a legal misinterpretation; accordingly the application of the NPPF paragraph 11(d) "tilted balance" and related paragraph 14 considerations were not vitiated by the error found by the High Court. The order quashing the planning permission was therefore set aside.

Appeal from the High Court (King's Bench Division, Planning Court: Timothy Mould QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)) which had quashed the grant of planning permission [2022] EWHC 352 (Admin). This Court (Court of Appeal Civil Division) allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's order [2022] EWCA Civ 1417.