Save Bristol Gardens Alliance Limited v Bristol City Council

In a planning judicial review, the court asks whether the officer’s report, read fairly and as a whole, materially misled the decision-maker on a matter bearing on the decision. Minor errors do not invalidate a permission unless the advice materially misdirected the committee.

A local planning authority may reasonably continue using an environmental metric or technical methodology current when a project was substantially underway, particularly where published guidance discourages changing methodology mid-project. The authority may adopt a precautionary planning judgment without resolving every quantitative uncertainty, provided it considers both relevant dimensions of the policy test and explains its approach.

Where a later methodology might produce a less favourable result, the authority is not necessarily required to reassess an application retrospectively, especially where its published policy expressly preserves the earlier methodology.

The claimant sought judicial review of planning permission granted by Bristol City Council for the redevelopment of Bristol Zoological Gardens, including residential units, community floorspace and open space.

Three grounds were advanced. The claimant challenged the use of Biodiversity Metric 3.0 rather than later versions, the use of Part L 2013 carbon-emissions factors rather than the updated Part L 2021 methodology, and the officer’s assessment of replacement open space under paragraph 99(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The central issues were whether the planning officer materially misled the committee, failed rationally to exercise planning judgment, failed to take account of material considerations or failed to make reasonable inquiry.

1. Claim dismissed. The governing approach was that in R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling BC the officer’s report had to be read fairly and as a whole. The question was whether the committee had been materially misled on a matter bearing on its decision.
2. Ground 1 failed. It was reasonably open to the officer to treat the project as having begun when ecological survey results became available in July 2021. Natural England’s guidance supported completing an assessment using the metric current when the project began and warned against using different metrics interchangeably. The officer was entitled to accept the consultant’s credible explanation of how the urban-tree calculation in Metric 3.0 had been applied. The decision not to require reassessment using Metrics 3.1 or 4.0 was not irrational.
3. Ground 2 failed. The application had been prepared and validated using the local authority’s guidance, which required the methodology in the current Part L standards at the time of preparation. The authority’s later Addendum expressly provided that schemes already in planning using Part L 2013 should retain that methodology and should not be assessed retrospectively under Part L 2021. The officer reasonably followed that policy choice. Calculations suggesting that Part L 2021 might produce a non-compliant result were not so obviously material that the committee was required to consider them directly. There was consequently no breach of the duty of reasonable inquiry.
4. Ground 3 failed. Paragraph 99(b) required a planning judgment having regard to both quantity and quality. Precise findings on the amount of open space lost and replaced were not essential. The officer adopted a reasonable worst-case approach on quantity, while finding a marked qualitative improvement through free public access, long-term management and improved facilities. That was sufficient to conclude that equivalent or better provision would result.

First-instance judicial review claim. Permission to proceed was granted on the papers on 28 October 2024. The claim was dismissed by the High Court (Administrative Court).