In TV Harrison CIC v Leeds City Council [2022] EWHC 1675 (Admin), the High Court has provided guidance on a number of issues surrounding planning decision-making, including the failure to have regard to planning policy, the duty to give reasons and the misleading of planning committees.
Leeds City Council granted itself outline planning permission for 61 affordable dwellings on a long-standing playing field used informally by the local community. The value of the space was disputed between the claimant and the council and the claimant challenged the permission on four grounds.
Ground one alleged that the officer’s report (OR) failed to address saved policy N6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan, which set out conditions for development of playing pitches. The council argued that since the content of policy N6 was the same as paragraph 99 of the National Planning Policy Framework, an assessment of paragraph 99 was sufficient. The court disagreed, finding that policy N6 and paragraph 99 contained differences of substance, and therefore policy N6 required separate consideration. It also pointed out that the OR expressly listed each policy deemed relevant without referencing policy N6.
Ground two alleged that the council failed to give reasons for its decision. The court confirmed that the fact the council was granting itself permission did not alone give rise to a common law duty to give reasons; however, a duty did arise in this case because the council’s decision differed from the fully reasoned objection of a statutory consultee, being Sport England. It found that the OR satisfactorily discharged that duty.
Ground three alleged a failure to have regard to material considerations in respect of paragraph 99(a) of the NPPF, which allows a playing field to be built on if assessment shows it is surplus to requirements. The OR concluded that the playing field was surplus to requirements owing to its poor quality, based on an assessment made in the preparation of the relevant site allocations plan. The court held that this decision was a matter of planning judgment, and therefore it would not intervene in the absence of irrationality.
Ground four alleged that the OR materially misled the planning committee in respect of the measures intended to satisfy paragraph 99(b) of the NPPF, which requires that facilities lost are “replaced by equivalent or better provision”. The OR advised that a condition securing relocation of facilities and/or improvements to existing facilities would satisfy this. The court held that the adequacy of a condition is a matter of planning judgment and it could not be concluded that the report was materially misleading.
This judgment very clearly reiterates the wide ambit of planning judgment and the extent to which the court cannot intervene in matters of planning decision-making. It does, however, send a warning to decision-makers about expressly listing the planning policies considered, demonstrating that the inclusion of what is apparently an exhaustive list could work against them if their decision is later challenged in court.
Erica Ives is a solicitor in the planning and environmental team at Irwin Mitchell