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

Where a planning policy expressly requires alternative sites to be considered, their availability is a legally mandatory material consideration. The authority must address that consideration, but it retains planning judgment over the scope and adequacy of the search, subject to ordinary public-law review. A mistake of fact invalidates a decision only where an established, objectively verifiable fact was mistaken, the claimant was not responsible, and the mistake materially influenced the reasoning. An officer’s report is unlawful only if, read fairly and benevolently, it materially misleads the committee on a matter bearing on the decision and the error remains uncorrected. A report that acknowledges the possible existence of less harmful alternatives and weighs that possibility may satisfy these requirements even without identifying every site.

Hilltop Experiences Limited sought judicial review of Norfolk County Council’s grant of planning permission for a replacement household waste recycling centre within the Norfolk Coast National Landscape. Lieven J dismissed the claim in the High Court: [2025] EWHC 1447 (Admin).

After the first hearing, Hilltop sought to adduce evidence concerning East Beckham Quarry, said to be an alternative site outside the National Landscape, and to amend its grounds. The appeal concerned whether the Council had made a material error of fact or whether its officers’ report had materially misled the planning committee by failing to identify that site, and whether the judge had wrongly refused the evidence and amendment.

The appeal was dismissed. The judge below was right to conclude that the grant of planning permission was lawful and that the additional evidence and proposed amendment were immaterial.

1. Alternative sites. Under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the authority had to have regard to the development plan and determine the application in accordance with it unless material considerations indicated otherwise. Policy EN1 specifically required consideration of alternative sites where development in the National Landscape would cause adverse effects. Alternative sites were therefore a legally mandatory material consideration.
2. Scope of the inquiry. The distinction identified in [2020] UKSC 3 and [2009] EWHC 1729 remained important. Where alternatives are not legally mandatory, the scope and adequacy of the search are matters of planning judgment, reviewed only on conventional public-law grounds. The intensity of the inquiry is context-specific and proportionate to the harm, need, urgency and potential benefits of alternatives.
3. Alleged mistake of fact. Applying E v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2004] EWCA Civ 49, a mistake must concern an established and objectively verifiable fact, be attributable to neither the appellant nor its advisers, and play a material part in the reasoning. The alleged failure by the quarry owner to engage was not an established factual mistake. Although the officer had misunderstood which quarry was identified in the supporting statement, that mistake was immaterial because the report proceeded on the basis that a suitable alternative outside the National Landscape might exist.
4. Officer’s report. The principles in Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, [2017] EWCA Civ 1314, were not infringed. Read fairly, the report disclosed the limitations of the site search, recognised the possibility of suitable sites outside the National Landscape, treated that possibility as adverse to the proposal, and nevertheless concluded that the public benefits outweighed the planning harm. The omission of a specific reference to East Beckham Quarry therefore did not materially mislead the committee or invalidate its decision.
5. The refusal to admit the new evidence and amend the grounds followed from its immateriality. The question of discretionary relief under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 did not arise because no error of law had been established.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal against the High Court’s decision: [2026] EWCA Civ 541.
• High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Planning Court (Lieven J) dismissed the judicial review claim concerning the planning permission: [2025] EWHC 1447 (Admin).