R v Selby District Council and another, ex parte Oxton Farms and another

Planning permission – Report of planning officer – Need for local housing – Whether planning committee having proper regard to development plan – Whether exceptional circumstances demonstrated – Application for judicial review – Appeal against refusal dismissed Selby District Council, the first respondents, were concerned with the need for housing in Tadcaster. In 1992 the council granted outline planning permission to Persimmon Homes Ltd, the second respondents, for residential development on a site outside the village envelope at field no 9115, Roman Road, Tadcaster, and for the construction of an extension to Turnpike Road to form access to the site. In 1994 permission was granted for the erection of 23 dwellings with garages on the site and the construction of the access road. Policy HSG5 in the local plan provided that residential development outside the existing built up limits was not permitted unless exceptional circumstances could be shown. The planning committee decided that the need for housing development was in all the circumstances sufficiently compelling to warrant the grant of planning permission, and that the proposed development would not result in demonstrable harm. The applicants, Oxton Farms and Samuel Smith Old Brewery, which owned Oxton, sought judicial review of the 1992 grants of planning permission and of the 1994 grant on the grounds that the council: (1) had wrongly given consideration to the 1992 decisions when granting permission in 1994; (2) had not been entitled to grant planning permission on the 1992 applications given their view of the need for housing, consistent with the test required by section 54A of the 1990 Act, (3) had failed to refer specifically to para 53 of PPG 3; (4) had failed to consider housing need combining the requirements of Tadcaster and the “service villages” in the local plan area; and (5) had acted irrationally in making the decision in respect of the access road. The judge quashed the 1992 decisions, but dismissed the application to quash the 1994 decision. Oxton and Samuel Smith appealed from the judge’s dismissal of their application for judicial review of the 1994 decision, and the council and Persimmon appealed from his decision to quash the 1992 decisions. Held The appeals were dismissed. There was no basis upon which the court would quash the decision. It was important that those who made determinations in respect of planning decisions should have in mind section 70(2) and section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and apply the test contained therein. A planning officer reporting to a planning committee had also to keep the test in mind in preparing the information to provide to the committee and in the manner in which that information was provided. The resulting report was not susceptible of textual analysis, and defects of presentation would not result in the decision being quashed unless, which was not the case, the overall effect of the report was significantly misleading. Matthew Horton QC and Peter Village (instructed by Pinsent Curtis, of Leeds) appeared for the applicants, Oxton Farms and Samuel Smith Old Brewery; John Howell QC (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London agents for the solicitor to Selby District Council) appeared for the first respondents, Selby District Council ; Jonathan Milner (instructed by Walker Morris, of Leeds) appeared for the second respondents, Persimmon Homes Ltd.