Rachel Scarrott v Chelmsford City Council

A planning decision is unlawful only where an officer’s report materially misleads the committee on a matter bearing upon its decision, so that the decision would or might have been different. Planning policies must be interpreted objectively, but their standards may permit a fact-sensitive departure where the policy expressly allows it. A minor factual error is immaterial where the underlying consideration remains unaffected. A failure to use the correct dimensions for a fire appliance was an admitted public law error, but relief had to be refused where it was highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority’s decision to grant permission for six affordable homes on a garage site in Chelmsford. Permission was granted on five grounds concerning the interpretation and reporting of development standards, an alleged factual error about garden length, the retention of natural boundaries, a waste-collection consultation response, and fire-appliance access.

The central issues were whether the officer’s advice materially misled the planning committee, whether the committee failed to have regard to a relevant development-plan policy or material consideration, and whether the admitted error in the fire-appliance tracking drawing required relief.

1. Grounds 1 and 2 dismissed. Policy DM26 and Appendix B required the specified privacy standards unless particular site circumstances allowed a lower provision. The 15-metre back-to-boundary standard could therefore be relaxed where the substantial back-to-back separation meant that the policy objectives of privacy and residential amenity were achieved. The officers’ advice, read fairly and as a whole, conveyed that judgment despite some inaccurate or infelicitous wording.
2. The statement that the gardens were generally over 25 metres long contained a minor error concerning the claimant’s garden. It was immaterial because the relevant consideration was the distance between the existing and proposed dwellings, which remained over 30 metres.
3. Ground 3 dismissed. Growth Site Policy 1S concerned retention of the natural woodland boundaries of the larger allocated site. Those boundaries were plainly retained. Detailed boundary and landscaping matters could properly be controlled by conditions.
4. Ground 5(a) dismissed. The waste-service concerns had been sufficiently addressed or made capable of control through conditions, including a traffic regulation order and approval of refuse-vehicle servicing arrangements.
5. Ground 6 established an error but no relief was granted. The committee had been given a fire-appliance tracking drawing based on an incorrect vehicle length. Under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, relief was refused because the corrected drawing would have shown only minimal body overhang of landscaping, with no evidence of danger, and it was highly likely that permission would have been granted on the same basis. Late, unpleaded challenges and non-compliant expert evidence were disregarded.
6. The judicial review claim was dismissed.