Retail planning consent nullified by High Court over 'misleading' officer's report

Officers of Ryedale District Council misled planning committee members over a proposed retail development in the centre of Malton, the High Court has ruled.

That conclusion was reached by Mr Justice Dove when he quashed the planning decision after an application for judicial review by landowner Fitzwilliam (Malton) Estate.

This turned on the interpretation of a planning inspector’s conclusion on use of the Wentworth Street Car Park site, and whether the sequential test for commercial development beyond town centres had been correctly applied.

The judgement said: “I am satisfied that the officer’s report did mislead members, and mislead them significantly, as to the findings and conclusions of the inspector in relation to the sequential test.

“The starting point of the officer's report was that the inspector's conclusions were 'not fully reasoned other than pointing to poorer pedestrian links'. That observation which appears to be the summation of the officer's understanding of the inspector's conclusions was not merely a gross over simplification but fundamentally misrepresented the inspector's decision.”

Mr Justice Dove said the inspector’s conclusions had been “fully reasoned and in a manner which was legally impeccable”.

He said that since officers were inviting members to reach a contrary conclusion to the inspector on the sequential test, they should have provided adequate reasons to justify an alternative decision.

“In my view it is clear that they did not,” the judge said. “That is perhaps unsurprising given that they thought, erroneously, that the inspector's report wasn't 'fully reasoned' save with respect to pedestrian links.

“As a result of not having properly appreciated the wealth of reasoning provided by the inspector they thereafter do not engage with those reasons in explaining why a different answer to the one reached by the inspector should be provided.”

Ryedale’s leader Linda Cowling noted that an earlier judicial review application by Fitzwilliam (Malton) Estate had been dismissed as without merit and so the new decision was “an indication of just how complex planning law is relating to retail planning applications”.

Cllr Cowling said that given the earlier decision and content of counsels’ advice “it was reasonable to defend the decision of the planning committee in this case”.

Councillors would now reconsider the application, she said.