Court quashes planning permission for care home over error in officer report

The High Court has quashed planning permission for a care home because of a material error in the council officer’s report that led to its approval.

HHJ Belcher found that City of York Council should have had a clearer report about the need for care home accommodation in the area concerned.

Two local residents, John Matthews and Mary Urmston, had taken the council and Octopus Healthcare Developments to court over the expected impact on their nearby properties.

The judge said that following publication of the planning committee report in question, Fulford Parish Council wrote to York to highlight errors regarding the provision of care home beds in its area.

According to the parish council there was already three times over-provision.

The judge said that while revised figures for care home places in the area had been included in a part of the officer’s report devoted to flood risk, these had not appeared elsewhere.

“There is nothing from which this court could properly conclude that the corrected figures were taken into account by members when considering fundamentally important issues such as the principle of development and the planning balance,” she said giving judgment in Matthews & Anor, R (on the application of) v City of York Council & Anor [2018] EWHC 2102.

“I conclude that the overall effect of the report was to significantly mislead the committee about the level of undersupply in the local area and which was left uncorrected in relation to the issues of the principle of development and the planning balance.”

The judge also addressed a challenge by Mr Matthews that he suffered prejudice by not being informed of the relevant planning committee meeting despite having objected to the application.

She said the council could show it sent the email even if Mr Matthews did not for some reason receive it.

“It seems very surprising that in all the email traffic, this one particular email should not be received by him,” the judge said.

“I consider that the preponderance of evidence is such that I should conclude that Mr Matthews did in fact receive the email, and that he is mistaken when he asserts he did not.”

Three other grounds of challenge were rejected.

Mark Smulian