Bentley Pauncefoot Parish Council v Redditch Borough Council & Anor

A planning officer’s report must be read fairly and with reasonable benevolence. The court intervenes only where the report materially misleads or misdirects the committee on a matter bearing on its decision, so that the outcome might have been different.

A later, more detailed and effectively unchallenged assessment may properly inform the committee despite differing assumptions in earlier material. The duty to make reasonable further inquiry is not engaged where the necessary information is already available. Previous planning decisions may be material considerations, but each application must be determined on its merits and the authority may rely on detailed statutory consultee advice.

The claimant sought judicial review of planning permission granted by Redditch Borough Council and Bromsgrove District Council for a hybrid application involving up to 2,560 dwellings and associated facilities and infrastructure.

Grounds 1 and 2 alleged that the planning committee had been materially misled, or lacked necessary information, about the phasing and duration of construction and residential traffic using Foxlydiate Lane. Ground 3 concerned the failure to require a contribution towards home-to-school transport, relying on contributions sought in two other applications. Permission had been refused on ground 3 and was renewed at the substantive hearing.

1. Grounds 1 and 2 dismissed. The committee papers and minutes made the access phasing clear. The material identified that Foxlydiate Lane would initially be used for construction access, that the Birchfield Road access would then serve construction traffic, and that Foxlydiate Lane would also accommodate residential traffic before the principal access became available.
2. The officer’s report was not materially misleading. On a fair reading of the report as a whole, the committee had been given the relevant information and was entitled to conclude that the revised arrangements addressed the concerns which had led to the earlier deferral.
3. The environmental statement and the Construction Access Review assessed different construction activities. The committee was entitled to rely on the later, more detailed, evidence-based and effectively unchallenged assessment of approximately 24 weeks. The difference between the assessments did not establish an error of law.
4. The duty to make reasonable further inquiry was not engaged because all information necessary for a properly informed decision on the planning merits was before the committee.
5. Ground 3 refused permission. Previous planning decisions were capable of being material considerations, but each application had to be determined on its own merits. The authority was entitled to rely on the detailed consultations of the highways and education authorities, neither of which sought a home-to-school transport contribution for this development.
6. The claim was dismissed and permission to apply for judicial review on ground 3 was refused.