Alan Pearce, R (on the application of) v West Berkshire Council

A planning committee must receive advice that is not significantly or seriously misleading on a material planning issue. The court intervenes only where the officer’s advice contains a distinct and material defect, including failure to address a matter on which the committee required explicit advice. A planning application must be assessed on its own planning merits. Future development proposals may remain relevant, but they must not be treated as part of the current application unless the proposal itself engages the relevant policy. A non-binding informative may be sufficient to address a committee’s concern where a planning condition is unnecessary or unreasonable.

The claimant sought judicial review of West Berkshire Council’s grant of planning permission for a sports pavilion, car park and artificial turf pitch at Newbury Rugby Football Club. He argued that committee members had been materially misled about the relationship between the proposal and the possible redevelopment of the Faraday Road Stadium, and that the committee had misinterpreted local and national policies protecting sports facilities and playing fields.

The council contended that the application was a stand-alone proposal addressing local pitch-capacity shortages. The court also considered an application to vary a protective costs cap.

1. Ground 1 failed. The relevant legal principles were stated in Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 and R (on the application of William Corbett) v The Cornwall Council v Stephen Tavener [2020] EWCA Civ 508. The court asks whether the officer’s advice was significantly or seriously misleading in a material way. Intervention requires a distinct and material defect.
2. The application was properly considered as a stand-alone scheme. It did not itself involve loss of the Faraday Road Stadium. Any later application for redevelopment would have to be assessed separately against the applicable planning policies and the requirements for offsetting any loss of playing-field provision.
3. The earlier joint statement between the council and Sport England caused some confusion, but the officers clarified the position at the committee meeting. Sport England no longer required a condition securing a replacement grass pitch elsewhere. The proposed artificial pitch was a better facility than the pitch being replaced and could provide rugby training as well as football use. The reports were therefore not materially misleading.
4. Ground 2 failed. The officers gave proper advice on the relevant policy considerations and on the absence of a need for a binding replacement-pitch condition. The committee was entitled to accept that advice. The informative recommending a replacement rugby grass pitch was sufficient to address the committee’s concerns.
5. The claim was dismissed on both grounds. Permission to rely on the claimant’s additional witness statement was refused. The protective costs cap was varied from £5,000 to £11,000, taking account of the £1,000 pledged in support.