Alexander James Warren Wynne, R (on the application of) v Vale of White Horse District Council

The claimant sought renewed permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the District Council’s grant of full planning permission (P22/V2377/FUL) for demolition of an existing scout hut and pavilion and erection of a single new community and sports pavilion on the Louie Memorial Playing Fields. The claimant advanced seven grounds alleging irrationality, that the committee had been misled, failure to comply with the public sector equality duty (section 149 Equality Act 2010), misinterpretation/misapplication of development plan and NPPF policy (including paragraph 99), and failure to secure protections by condition or obligation.

The judge applied the ordinary standard of judicial review for planning decisions (rationality and planning judgment) and the principles on officers' reports (Mansell and related authorities). On a fair reading of the officer's report and the materials before the committee the court held that officers and members had properly identified and weighed the Scout Group’s concerns, had given due regard to the PSED, and had lawfully exercised planning judgment in concluding that the replacement multi-use facility met the relevant policy tests. The application for renewed permission was refused.

Background and parties:

• The applicant/claimant is the chair of trustees of the 4th Oxford Scout Group, which formerly occupied a Scout Hut on land owned by Botley and North Hinksey Parish Council. The Parish Council applied for, and was granted, planning permission to demolish the Scout Hut and an existing pavilion and to erect a single new community and sports pavilion. The Scout Group vacated the Scout Hut in March 2021. The District Council granted planning permission by notice dated 26 July 2023.

Procedural posture and relief sought:

• The claimant sought permission to judicially review the District Council’s decision (Claim Form dated 6 September 2023). Permission was refused on the papers by a Deputy High Court Judge on 18 October 2023. The claimant renewed the application and argued orally. The claimant sought permission to challenge the council decision on seven grounds and alleged both illegality and irrationality in the decision-making and officer advice.

Issues framed by the court:

• Ground 1: Whether the conclusion that the Scout Group would not be prejudiced and could be accommodated (effectively two evenings’ access) was irrational.
• Ground 2: Whether Planning Committee had been misled by officers’ failure to present up-to-date information on the Scout Group’s activities.
• Ground 3: Whether the public sector equality duty (section 149 Equality Act 2010) was properly discharged.
• Grounds 4–6: Whether the officer’s report and committee misapplied development plan policy (Policy CP08 of Local Plan Part 2 and SI1 of the Neighbourhood Plan) and paragraph 99 of the NPPF in assessing loss and replacement of community facilities.
• Ground 7: Whether the council irrationally failed to secure a community use agreement or condition to protect minimum provision for scouting activity.

Court’s reasoning and outcome:

• The court reviewed the factual background (site ownership by the Parish Council, the Scout Group’s long prior occupation and vacatur in March 2021, the 2019 permission that lapsed, the 2022 application, the officer’s report, and representations including timetabling schedules provided by the Scout Group).
• On Ground 1 the judge found that a fair reading of the officer’s report showed officers had recognised that the replacement building would not replicate all past uses but concluded, as a matter of planning judgment, that equivalent meeting space and suitable times could be provided overall and that the multi-use, more accessible facility brought countervailing benefits. That planning judgment was not irrational.
• On Ground 2 the court found the councillor’s question about 2018 figures was reasonably answered; members had been emailed the claimant’s representations and the schedules and so were not materially misled.
• On Ground 3 the officer’s report contained an explicit PSED section (section 149) and the judge was satisfied the authority had had due regard and carried out a rigorous consideration; there was no duty to acquire further material where the decision-maker reasonably considered the available material sufficient.
• On Grounds 4–6 the court held the officer’s report addressed the policy tests (paragraph 99 NPPF and local policies) and reached evaluative planning judgments about equivalence, quality and accessibility of replacement provision; those judgments were open to the council on the evidence and were not unlawful or irrational.
• On Ground 7 the judge held there was no arguable irrationality in deciding not to impose a condition or obligation securing minimum scouting provision given there was no legal entitlement between landowner and Scout Group and the matter was one of planning judgment and reasonableness of conditions.
• The judge also considered but did not find the s.31(3C)/(3D) Senior Courts Act point determinative; in any event the renewal was refused because the grounds were unarguable.

The claimant’s renewed application for permission to judicially review the District Council’s grant of planning permission is refused. The court held that, on a fair reading of the officer’s report and the materials placed before Planning Committee, officers and members had properly considered the Scout Group’s representations, had given due regard to the public sector equality duty (section 149 Equality Act 2010), and had lawfully exercised planning judgment in concluding the replacement multi-use facility met the relevant policies (including paragraph 99 of the NPPF and local policies). No arguable irrationality or procedural illegality was made out and no obligation to secure minimum scouting provision by condition or obligation arose in the circumstances.

The claimant had earlier sought permission to challenge the Parish Council’s termination of the lease (application in 2020) and permission to that earlier claim was refused by Order dated 14 January 2021. Permission to proceed with the present claim was refused on the papers by Timothy Corner KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) by Order dated 18 October 2023; this judgment refuses the claimant’s renewed application for permission (renewal heard 1 February 2024).