Richard Dixon, R (on the application of) v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

Planning authorities may lawfully reach a different planning judgment from an internal conservation officer or statutory consultee, provided the decision-maker understands the relevant heritage and planning issues and gives adequate reasons. An officers’ report is read fairly as a whole; minor statutory errors, imprecise language or failure to quantify less than substantial harm more finely will not invalidate a decision absent material misunderstanding or prejudice. The authority must consider relevant mitigation, including proposed reductions or relocation of development, but need not redesign an applicant’s scheme. Consultation need not be reopened for amendments or policy changes which do not alter the nature or scope of the application and cause no material prejudice. The introduction of grey belt policy did not itself require fresh consultation.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local planning authority’s decision to grant the interested party planning permission for a renewable-led solar energy generating station on green belt land near a Grade II registered park and garden.

He challenged the decision on three grounds: inadequate reasons for rejecting the conservation officer’s assessment of harm; failure to consider reducing or relocating solar panels as mitigation; and procedural unfairness in failing to reopen consultation after amended planting proposals and changes to the National Planning Policy Framework introducing the grey belt concept.

1. The claim was dismissed. The authority was entitled, as a matter of planning judgment, to disagree with its Design and Conservation Officer and with aspects of the Gardens Trust’s views. Different judgments forming during an evolving planning process are normal and lawful.
2. The officers’ report, read fairly as a whole, addressed the impact on the registered park and garden, the relevant local policies and the National Planning Policy Framework, the mitigation proposed, and the public benefits of renewable energy. The reference to Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, section 66, was a minor error because that provision did not apply to registered parks and gardens. The description of the heritage impact as neutral was imprecise, but it misled no one. The report was not invalidated by failing to calibrate more precisely the level of less than substantial harm.
3. Heritage and landscape considerations were not required to be treated in separate silos where, in the circumstances, the heritage impact was visual and concerned views from the registered park and garden. The report considered whether panels should be reduced or moved lower down the slope. The authority was entitled to accept the developer’s economic objection and conclude that additional planting, secured by condition, sufficiently mitigated the harm.
4. The authority had the clear and convincing justification test in mind. The relevant local and national policies were identified and applied. There was no failure to consider that test or the possibility of a reduced scheme.
5. Fairness did not require consultation to be reopened. The additional planting responded to an earlier suggestion by the Gardens Trust, did not alter the nature or scope of the application, and caused no material prejudice to the claimant, who knew of the proposals and made representations. The grey belt policy change altered the applicable policy threshold but did not change the planning application itself. The claim therefore failed on all three grounds.

The claimant was ordered to pay the local planning authority’s costs, limited to £5,000 including VAT, subject to the final order.