Hilltop Experiences Limited, R (on the application of) v Norfolk County Council

In a planning judicial review, the adequacy of an alternative-site investigation is ordinarily a matter of planning judgment. The investigation must be proportionate to the development’s potential harm, the benefits of alternatives, and the need or urgency for the proposal. The court intervenes only for irrationality or material misdirection.

Whether development is “major development” under NPPF paragraphs 182–183 is also a planning judgment, assessed by its nature, scale, setting and potential significant adverse impact on the designated landscape. An officer’s report must be read fairly as a whole. Minor errors or irrelevant references do not invalidate a decision unless they materially misled the committee.

The public sector equality duty requires rigorous and conscientious consideration of obvious equality impacts, but does not prescribe an equality impact assessment or a particular result.

Hilltop Experiences Limited sought judicial review of Norfolk County Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a replacement household waste recycling centre within the Norfolk Coast National Landscape, approximately 35 metres from Hilltop, an outdoor education facility used by children, including children with special educational needs and other vulnerabilities.

The challenge alleged failures to consider alternative sites, unlawful treatment of the proposal as non-major development under NPPF paragraph 183, failure properly to apply the National Landscape policy, breach of the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and an unlawful environmental impact assessment screening opinion. Ground Four was withdrawn. After the hearing, the claimant sought to adduce evidence concerning East Beckham Quarry and to amend the claim.

1. Claim dismissed. The court refused permission to amend the statement of facts and grounds and rejected the application to adduce further evidence as immaterial to the result.
2. The local planning authority had accepted that alternatives required consideration under development-plan policy. The officer’s report acknowledged that the site-selection exercise was limited and that further sites might exist, but explained the relevant need, the proposal’s limited impacts, the known Stonehill Way site, and the consequences of delay and expense. The adequacy of the investigation was a matter of planning judgment. Given the limited harm and accepted need, the conclusion that no further investigation was required was not irrational. The case was not a “beauty parade” involving competing sites for a single permission, as in Forge Field Society.
3. The conclusion that the proposal was not “major development” for NPPF paragraph 183 was lawful. The references to essential infrastructure and the existing facility were irrelevant to that particular question, but did not materially mislead the committee. The report also relied on relevant matters, including the site’s modest scale, low throughput, limited additional activity, setting and assessed landscape impact.
4. Because the proposal was lawfully treated as non-major development, the full exceptional-circumstances debate under paragraph 183 did not arise. In any event, the report set out the correct policy test and material information. The absence of an express analysis labelled “exceptional circumstances” did not materially mislead members. Any omission could not have affected the outcome within section 31(2A) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
5. The public sector equality duty was met. The authority considered noise, Hilltop’s proximity, mitigation, the existing facility and the information supplied by Hilltop. No equality impact assessment was mandatory, and the authority was not required to investigate every conceivable impact.
6. The regulation 6 screening opinion under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 was lawful. Screening is preliminary and does not require a full environmental assessment. The authority had considered the relevant effects and rationally concluded that significant environmental effects were unlikely.

First-instance judicial review in the High Court. No appeal decision is stated in the judgment.