Wyeth-Price, R (On the Application Of) v Guildford Borough Council [2020] EWHC 3355 (Admin) (08 December 2020)

Wyeth-Price, R (On the Application Of) v Guildford Borough Council [2020] EWHC 3355 (Admin) (08 December 2020)

The planning officer's reports failed to advise the Planning Committee that harm to heritage assets must be given 'considerable importance and weight' and failed to reference or summarise the key NPPF paragraphs requiring 'great weight' and 'clear and convincing justification' for harm. This omission materially...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3355 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Sue Wyeth-Price; Defendant: Guildford Borough Council; Interested Party: Bewley Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; planning permission quashed on ground 1; other grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
Listed Buildings, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Heritage Assets, Officer Reports, Statutory Duties
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Law Listed Buildings Planning Permission Judicial Review Heritage Assets Officer Reports +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sue Wyeth-Price

Claimant

Guildford Borough Council

Defendant

Bewley Homes Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council failed to properly apply section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in granting planning permission affecting heritage assets.
  2. 2 Whether the Council failed to have regard to the advice of Surrey Wildlife Trust regarding a veteran tree and acted irrationally in departing from that advice.

Ratio Decidendi

The planning officer's reports failed to advise the Planning Committee that harm to heritage assets must be given 'considerable importance and weight' and failed to reference or summarise the key NPPF paragraphs requiring 'great weight' and 'clear and convincing justification' for harm. This omission materially misled the Committee in the balancing exercise, such that the decision to grant planning permission was unlawful. The Council's approach to the veteran tree was not irrational or unlawful, as it properly considered competing expert advice and was entitled to its conclusion.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; planning permission quashed on ground 1; other grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • Planning permission for the development at Ash Manor is quashed.
  • No relief granted on ground 2.