Lesley Faherty, R (on the application of) v Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council

A planning officer’s report must enable committee members to make an informed planning judgment and must not materially mislead them about a material matter. A consultation response may be summarised, provided its substance is conveyed on a fair reading of the report as a whole.

Members may adopt a rational planning assessment different from that of a specialist officer. Common-law reasons are required only where fairness and openness demand them. Any identified heritage harm must be taken into account and given appropriate weight.

The claimant sought judicial review of the council’s grant of planning permission for the remodelling and extension of a bungalow adjoining the Christchurch Central Conservation Area.

The issues were whether the planning officer’s report materially misled the committee about the conservation officer’s advice, whether reasons were required for reaching a different conclusion, and whether the correct heritage-policy framework was applied.

1. The claim was dismissed and the planning permission was not quashed.
2. On a fair reading of the report as a whole, the committee was not materially misled. A consultation response need not be reproduced verbatim, but its substance must be conveyed. The report sufficiently communicated the conservation officer’s concern that the proposal should be scaled back to remain in keeping with the street scene.
3. A planning officer may reach a different rational planning judgment from a specialist conservation officer. The report explained why the proposal was considered consistent with neighbouring development and not harmful to the conservation area.
4. There is no general statutory duty to give reasons for granting planning permission. A common-law duty may arise where fairness and openness require reasons, particularly in cases involving substantial opposition, officer opposition, major policy departure or lasting policy relevance. This case did not require additional formulated reasons.
5. Any harm to the setting or character of a conservation area must be identified and given appropriate weight. Harm may be substantial, less than substantial or absent; there is no separate category of negligible harm within less than substantial harm. The planning officer was nevertheless entitled to reach the rational conclusion that there was no harm.