Rodmersham Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Swale Borough Council

A planning authority must publish a proposed planning obligation before the application is finally disposed of and must respect the statutory purpose of enabling informed comment on that obligation. A conditional resolution to grant is not final disposal. The sufficient period is fact-sensitive, including the document’s length and complexity, its accessibility without specialist expertise, and time to obtain assistance. A negative screening opinion under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 need not be kept under constant review, but the authority must address at the date of permission whether the development is likely to have significant environmental effects. A chair’s requirement for substantial reasons may mean evidence-based planning reasons. The duty of enquiry requires reasonable inquiry rather than every desirable inquiry. All grounds failed.

The Parish Council sought judicial review of Swale Borough Council’s grant of planning permission to Voltalia UK Limited for a temporary 40-year solar photovoltaic development on agricultural land. The Planning Committee resolved to grant permission on 11 September 2025. A unilateral planning undertaking under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was uploaded seven minutes before the meeting and the permission was issued 22 days later.

The challenge alleged unlawful failure to publish the draft undertaking in good time, failure to revisit a negative EIA screening opinion, material misdirection by the Committee chair, and failure to investigate the likely date of grid connection. Ground 1 had permission to proceed. Grounds 2–4 were considered at a rolled-up hearing after permission was granted for them.

Disposition. Permission was granted for grounds 2–4, but each substantive challenge was dismissed. Ground 1 was dismissed on its merits. The claim therefore failed.

1. Planning obligation publication. Article 40(3)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires publication before the application is finally disposed of. A conditional resolution to grant is not final disposal; that occurs only when permission is granted. The court applied R v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, ex p Burkett [2002] 1 WLR 1593. The purpose is to enable public knowledge and comment on the planning obligation, not consultation on the wider merits. The 22-day period was sufficient on these facts, although sufficiency is fact-sensitive and depends on the document, its complexity, accessibility and the time needed to obtain expertise. The failure alleged under ground 1 was not established.
2. EIA screening. There is no general duty to keep a negative screening opinion under constant review. At the date of permission, however, the authority must address whether the development is likely to have significant environmental effects and must revisit the issue where positive indicators create a realistic prospect of a different answer. Applying Swire and R (CBRE Lionbrook (General Partners) Ltd) v Rugby Borough Council [2014] EWHC 646 (Admin), the officer’s report, read fairly and as a whole in accordance with R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2019] PTSR 1452, considered the revisions and cumulative context. Its conclusion was rational.
3. Committee advice. The chair’s reference to substantial reasons was understood in context as requiring reasons grounded in evidence, development plan policy and material considerations. The warning that members might be expected to attend a later appeal was an expectation of assistance, not compulsion. The court applied the caution in R v Poole Borough Council, ex parte Beebee [1991] 2 P.L.R. 27 against dissecting isolated remarks from a corporate debate. There was no evidence that members were materially misled.
4. Grid connection inquiry. The duty in Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014, as explained in R (Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] 3 All ER 261, requires reasonable inquiry, not every inquiry that might be sensible. The report recorded a connection agreement, a temporary 40-year permission and the renewable-energy benefit. The 2036 date was a target energisation date, not the earliest possible connection date, and no further inquiry was reasonably required.

1. Permission stage. On the papers, Deputy High Court Judge Ockleton granted permission for ground 1 and refused permission for grounds 2–4 on 25 March 2026.
2. Rolled-up hearing. On 19 May 2026, Mould J directed that the substantive hearing of ground 1 and the renewed applications for grounds 2–4 be heard together. This court granted permission for grounds 2–4 but dismissed all four grounds.