JOANNE CATHIE (R on the application of) v CHESHIRE WEST AND CHESTER BOROUGH COUNCIL

When determining whether to discharge a planning condition requiring approval of details, the authority must remain loyal to the terms and purpose of the permission. The question is whether the submitted details provide a satisfactory solution, assessed in context; an ideal solution is unnecessary. The condition must also be interpreted objectively and cannot impose unreasonable, disproportionate or unjustifiable burdens. The authority may consider practical operational constraints, including the resources available to operate the development, provided it applies the condition’s actual requirements. A reference to best practice does not require a gold-plated solution or convert a requirement to monitor conditions into an absolute prohibition on operations in specified weather.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority’s decision to discharge a condition attached to retrospective planning permission for a reception pit and slatted yard at a dairy farm. The condition required a revised odour management plan addressing measures to minimise emissions, demonstrating best practice, and using meteorological information to inform removal of slurry and solids.

The claimant argued that the authority had applied the statutory nuisance concept of best practicable means, taken account of the interested parties’ financial circumstances, and accepted an irrational plan. The central issues were the proper interpretation of the condition and whether the authority applied the correct legal test when discharging it.

1. Interpretation of the condition. Applying an objective and purposive approach, informed by common sense and the background material, the condition required weather information to inform decisions about emptying the pit. It did not require emptying only when the wind came from specified directions, nor limit the other factors that could be considered. The requirement for best practice could not impose unreasonable obligations.
2. Test for discharge. The correct question was whether the odour management plan proposed a satisfactory solution to the impact of the farming operation on residential amenity. A satisfactory solution need not be ideal. Proberun Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment and Medina Borough Council was concerned with remaining loyal to the parent permission; its reference to the best means achievable applied where the proposed alternative was necessarily unsatisfactory and did not replace the satisfactory-details test.
3. Application. The authority did not unlawfully substitute the best practicable means test from the statutory nuisance regime. Its reference to all reasonably practicable measures was sufficient in context and demonstrated that it had considered the substance of the recommendation. There was substantial overlap between measures constituting best practicable means and measures providing a satisfactory planning solution.
4. The authority was entitled to consider practical difficulties, including reliance on contractors and the inability to impose a disproportionate or unjustifiable financial burden. The plan contained several measures addressing agitation, diet, slatted-yard emissions and cleaning. The claimant established no public law error. The claim was dismissed.