Court of Appeal rejects challenge to grant of planning permission for farm buildings development near River Wye

A case brought against Herefordshire Council over planning permission for farm buildings boiled down to an argument that the ecology officer’s advice had been wrong and no public law grounds existed to overturn the council’s grant and planning consent, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

In Sahota, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1640 Lord Justice Singh said that appellant David Sahota's real complaint was “not so much that the planning committee was misled by the officers' report…nor even that [ecology officer James Bisset’s] evidence was wrongly admitted by the judge…it is rather that Mr Bissett's advice was wrong”.

To succeed, Mr Sahota would have to “do more than show that others…might take a different view.

“What has to be shown is that there are public law grounds which would entitle the court to intervene by way of judicial review, in particular that there was a demonstrable error in the reasoning process; or that the conclusion was irrational.

“Having regard to the appropriate standard of review and on the evidence…I have reached the conclusion that there are no such public law grounds in this case.”

The appeal arose from Herefordshire granting permission to farmer John Morgan for the erection of a cattle shed and an extension to an existing agricultural building near to the River Wye, which is both a Special Area of Conservation and a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

Mr Sahota feared this expansion of livestock farming would increase the spreading of manure on the surrounding fields, which would run off into the Wye and other watercourses.

In evidence to the planning committee, Mr Bisset said the additional cattle shed has a floor area of 465.5 square metres and so “falls under any trigger sizes (500 square metres) for air pollution emissions in regards to any Sites of Special Scientific Interest”.

He added: “No likely significant effects on any relevant SSSI have been identified. There are no further ecology comments on this ... development within an existing developed farm complex.”

Mr Sahota argued the High Court had erred in law in deciding that Herefordshire had complied with regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations.

Singh LJ said: “In my view, the judge did not fall into error as a matter of principle. He correctly directed himself as to the relevant principles and the authorities on this topic. He reminded himself of the need for caution before admitting Mr Bisset's evidence.

“Furthermore, I do not think that the conclusion to which he came was one which was not reasonably open to him.”

Lord Justice Arnold and Lord Justice Lewis agreed with Singh LJ.

Mark Smulian