Christine Wells, R (on the application of) v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

In planning judicial review, the court reviews legality rather than the merits or weight given to planning considerations. A local planning authority need undertake only such inquiries as are reasonable. A site visit to an objector’s property is not automatically required, even where the objector says that plans and photographs do not fully show the impact.

Procedural fairness is fact-sensitive. A legitimate expectation of a site visit requires a representation that is clear, unambiguous and unqualified. Planning officers’ reports should be read with reasonable benevolence and will justify intervention only where a distinct and material defect could have affected the decision. A disagreement with planning judgment, or a judgment about which neighbouring property is most affected, is not of itself a material mistake of fact.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority’s delegated decision granting the interested party retrospective planning permission to retain a pool enclosure.

She argued that the decision was procedurally unfair and irrational because officers had not visited her property, that the authority had failed to make sufficient inquiry, and that the decision involved a material mistake of fact or reliance on an irrelevant consideration concerning the property most affected by the enclosure.

The central issues were whether fairness or legitimate expectation required a visit to the claimant’s property, whether the inquiry and delegated report were legally adequate, and whether the authority had materially misunderstood a fact.

1. The claim was dismissed. The authority had consulted the claimant, received detailed representations supported by photographs and planning advice, and fully considered her concerns. Disagreement with the officer’s conclusions did not establish procedural unfairness.
2. The authority was not obliged to visit the claimant’s property. Applying the sufficient-inquiry principles in R (on the Application of Plantagenet Alliance) v Secretary of State for Justice and others, [2014] EWHC 1662, the duty was to take such reasonable steps as were necessary to inform the decision-maker. The claimant did not show that no reasonable authority could have been satisfied without the additional visit. The site inspection, the authority’s knowledge of the area, and the detailed representations and photographs supplied reduced the need for a further visit.
3. No legitimate expectation of a visit arose. The emails did not contain a promise that was clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification, applying R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex p MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd, [1990] 1 WLR 1545. The reference to a case officer who would visit was read in context as referring to the application site, or at least was insufficiently clear to promise a visit to the claimant’s property. The reasoning in R (Suliman) v Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council, [2022] EWHC 1196 (Admin), was materially similar.
4. The delegated report was not irrational or materially defective. It addressed appearance, scale, outlook, privacy, glare, light spill, noise, landscaping and the claimant’s other objections. The court applied the established cautious approach to officer reports and found no material misdirection or failure of inquiry.
5. The statement that no objection had been received from the neighbouring property was factually correct. The further view that it might be the property most affected was a planning judgment, not a mistake of fact. The delegated report did not show that the decision had been based on a comparative assessment or that the claimant’s concerns had been discounted.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Morris J on 3 August 2022. The High Court then dismissed the claim.