Judicial Review quashes planning decision following neighbour objection: Lessons from R (Knights) v South Norfolk DC

This case serves as a reminder of the legal obligations placed on planning authorities when considering planning applications and the importance of procedural fairness in the planning process, particularly where neighbouring amenity is at stake.

Background

R (Paul Knights) v South Norfolk District Council concerned an application for planning permission granted by South Norfolk District Council (the “Defendant”) for the erection of a two-storey self-build dwelling adjacent to the claimant’s property in Gillingham, Norfolk. Mr Knights (the “Claimant”) objected to the development on the grounds that it would cause a significant loss of daylight and overshadow his home and garden.

To support his objection, the Claimant commissioned a detailed daylight and sunlight assessment which asserted that the proposed development would result in a substantial reduction in natural light to key living spaces in his property and overshadowing of the garden.

A rebuttal report (the “Rebuttal Report”) was also later submitted on behalf of the Claimant in response to arguments raised by the developer, addressing technical issues such as measurement accuracy, placement of the proposed dwelling, and the methodology used.

Despite this, the Defendant’s planning officer’s report made no reference to the Rebuttal Report and proceeded to recommend approval of the planning application.

Planning permission was subsequently granted under delegated powers before the Claimant challenged the decision and took the matter to a Judicial Review.

The legal challenge

The Claimant brought a judicial review on the grounds that the Council had failed to take into account all material considerations, specifically the Rebuttal Report. The High Court agreed with the Claimant’s position.

Deputy High Court Judge Neil Cameron KC held that the Rebuttal Report was a material consideration for the purposes of section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The report directly addressed the factual basis upon which Defendant’s the planning officer had made her decision – namely, the distance between the proposed development and the claimant’s property, and the impact on daylight and overshadowing.

The Court found that the officer’s report failed to engage with key evidence within the Rebuttal Report, and that this omission constituted a legal error. This legal error allowed the Court to intervene and ultimately make a decision about whether planning permission should be granted.

The initial planning decision made by the Claimant was based on a factual premise that had been robustly challenged by expert evidence, which the officer had not considered. As a result, the decision to grant planning permission was quashed.

Key legal takeaways

Material considerations must be considered

A planning authority is under a legal duty to consider all material considerations. Where expert evidence is submitted that directly challenges the factual basis of a planning officer’s recommendation, that evidence must be addressed.

In this case, relevant authority lies within Policy DM3.13 of the South Norfolk Local Plan which requires both loss of daylight and overshadowing to be considered by the Defendant’s planning officer.

The Judge confirmed that the Defendant’s planning officer failed to take into account material considerations raised in the Rebuttal Report (prepared on behalf of the Claimant), which were directly relevant to the factual basis of which she made her decision. As such this failure resulted in an error of law.

Officer reports must reflect the evidence

While there is no requirement for a planning authority’s officer reports to mention every document submitted, as confirmed by the Judge in this case, however they must not mislead or omit consideration of obviously material evidence.

The Court will likely assess whether a planning officer’s report, read fairly and as a whole, demonstrates that they were properly informed before making their decision.

As a result of the Defendant’s planning officer’s report failing to make reference to the contents of the Claimant’s Rebuttal Report (specifically the significant reduction in daylight in the living room and overshadowing of the patio), this created a reasonable ground for the Claimant to bring its case against the Defendant.

Delegated decisions are not immune from scrutiny

The same legal standards apply to decisions made under delegated powers as to those made by planning committees. Regulation 7 of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 requires a written record of the decision and the reasons for it.

Judicial Review remains a vital safeguard

It has been illustrated that the importance of Judicial Review as a mechanism for holding public authorities to account when they fail to follow proper legal procedures.

Implications for neighbours to land with planning applications

A growing concern among property owners and planning professionals has now been highlighted, calling into question whether neighbours are able to rely on local authorities to protect their interests when considering planning applications.

In addition, this case has evidenced that local authorities may not always take appropriate care and consideration to objections from neighbours, even when supported by expert evidence.

In such cases, affected individuals may have no choice but to seek redress through the Courts.

Conclusion

The decision of R (Paul Knights) v South Norfolk District Council is a clear reminder that planning authorities must engage meaningfully with all material considerations, particularly where expert evidence is submitted. Failure to do so may render their decisions unlawful and open to successful challenge.

If you are concerned about the impact of a proposed development and feel that your objections have not been properly considered, legal advice should be sought at the earliest opportunity. Get in touch with our Dispute Resolution experts today.