“42 The principles on which the court will act when criticism is made of planning officer’s report to committee are well settled. To summarise the law as it stands: (1) The essential principles are as stated by the Court of Appeal in v Selby District Council, Ex p Oxton Farms[2017] PTSR 1103 : see, in particular, the judgment of Judge LJ. They have since been confirmed several times by this court, notably by Sullivan LJ in R (Siraj) v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council [2011] JPL 571, para 19, and applied in many cases at first instance: see, for example, the judgment of Hickinbottom J in R (Zurich Assurance Ltd (trading as Threadneedle Property Investments)) v North Lincolnshire Council[2012] EWHC 3708 (Admin) at [15]. (2) The principles are not complicated. Planning officers’ reports to committee are not to be read with undue rigour, but with reasonable benevolence, and bearing in mind that they are written for councillors with local knowledge: see the judgment of Baroness Hale of Richmond JSC in R (Morge) v Hampshire County Council[2011] PTSR 337 , para 36 and the judgment of Sullivan J in R v Mendip District Council, Ex p Fabre[2017] PTSR 1112 , 1120. Unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise may reasonably be assumed that, if the members followed the officer’s recommendation, they did so on the basis of the advice that he or she gave see the judgment of Lewison LJ in R (Palmer) v Herefordshire Council[2017] WLR 411 , para 7. The question for the court will always be whether, on a fair reading of the report as a whole, the officer has materially misled the members on a matter bearing upon their decision, and the error has gone uncorrected before the decision was made. Minor or inconsequential errors may be excused. It is only if the advice in the officer’s report is such as to misdirect the members in a material way—so that, but for the flawed advice was given, the committee’s decision would or might have been different—that the court will be able to conclude that the decision itself was rendered unlawful by that advice. (3) Where the line is drawn between an officer’s advice that is significantly or seriously misleading—misleading in a material way—and advice that misleading but not significantly so will always depend on the context and circumstances in which the advice was given, and on the possible consequences of it. There will be cases in which a planning officer has inadvertently led a committee astray by making some significant error of fact (see, for example R (Loader) v Rother District Council [2017] JPL 25 or has plainly misdirected the members as to the meaning of a relevant policy: see, for example, R (Watermead Parish Council) v Aylesbury Vale District Council[2018] PTSR 43 . There will be others where the officer has simply failed to deal with a matter on which the committee ought to receive explicit advice if the local planning authority is to be seen to have performed its decision-making duties in accordance with the law: see, for example, R (Williams) v Powys County Council[2018] 1 WLR 439 . But unless there is some distinct and material defect in the officer’s advice, the court will not interfere.”
“62 I too agree with Lindblom LJ’s judgment, but would add a few words from a more general perspective. In the course of the argument, one could have been forgiven for thinking that the contention that the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework had been misapplied in the planning officer’s report turned on a minute legalistic dissection of that report. It cannot be over-emphasised that such an approach is wrong and inappropriate. As has so often been said, planning decisions are to be made by the members of the planning committee advised by planning officers. In making their decisions, they must exercise their own planning judgment and the courts must give them space to undertake that process. 63 Appeals should not, in future, be mounted on the basis of a legalistic analysis of the different formulations adopted in a planning officer’s report. An appeal will only succeed, as Lindblom LJ has said, if there is some distinct and material defect in the report. Such reports are not, and should not be, written for lawyers, but for councillors who are well-versed in local affairs and local factors. Planning committees approach such reports utilising that local knowledge and much common sense. They should be allowed to make their judgments freely and fairly without undue interference by courts or judges who have picked apart the planning officer’s advice on which they relied.”
“40 …. it seems to me that there are more fundamental issues as to the appropriateness of courts delving too deeply into the debates of democratically elected politicians. In the planning context one possible aspect is expertise. The court have cautioned against undue judicial intervention in policy judgments by expert tribunals within their areas of special competence (see AH (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (United Nations High Comr for Refugees intervening)[2008] AC 678 , para 30, per Baroness Hale of Richmond), and this reticence has been applied to considering the decisions of planning inspectors on issues of planning judgment: see Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Committees and Local Government[2009] PTSR 19 , para 43, per Carnwarth LJ. Arguably, the same applies to experienced planning committees with their training and codes of conduct. 41 More importantly, planning committees comprise democratically elected politicians, seeking to respond to their local communities and are ultimately answerable to them. The job is not easy, especially when passions on an issue are high and rational argument is squeezed. Large numbers of the public may attend committee meetings to voice their concerns. It is not just that the non-elected judge, sitting in the relative tranquillity of the Strand or Parliament Square, is unlikely to have experienced these pressures and how debate in these circumstances is shaped. It is also that excessive forensic analysis of political debate has an appearance of fettering the democratic process….”
“98. The second ground on which the Lord Chancellor’s Decision is challenged encompasses a number of arguments falling under the general head of “irrationality” or, as it is more accurately described, unreasonableness. This legal basis for judicial review has two aspects. The first is concerned with whether the decision under review is capable of being justified or whether in the classic Wednesbury formulation it is “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it”: see Associated Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp[1948] 1 KB 223 ,233-4. Another, simpler formulation of the test which avoids tautology is whether the decision is outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker: see e.g. Boddington v British Transport Police[1998] UKHL 13 ;[1999] 2 AC 143 , 175 (Lord Steyn). The second aspect of irrationality/unreasonableness is concerned with the process by which the decision was reached. A decision may be challenged on the basis that there is a demonstrable flaw in the reasoning which led to it - for example, that significant reliance was placed on an irrelevant consideration, or that there was no evidence to support an important step in the reasoning, or that the reasoning involved a serious logical or methodological error. Factual error, although it has been recognised as a separate principle, can also be regarded as an example of flawed reasoning - the test being whether a mistake as to a fact which was uncontentious and objectively verifiable played a material part in the decision-maker’s reasoning: see E v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2004] EWCA Civ 49 ;[2004] QB 1044 .”
“1. Creating a greener, fairer and more caring Cambridgeshire 1.1 This report details proposals that would impact on the following ambitions of the Council. Ambition 2: Travel across the county is safer and more environmentally sustainable 1.2 Mill Road’s use as an alternative route to the ring road for through traffic, combined with local use and the volume of cyclists and pedestrians, causes significant congestion at times, resulting in concerns over road safety. This high volume of traffic often causes conflict between motorised vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists, resulting in an unpleasant environment for all. Buses are delayed on Mill Road at peak and other busy times. Reducing traffic levels on Mill Road and particularly removing through movements would encourage more environmentally sustainable travel choices. Ambition 1: Net zero carbon emissions for Cambridgeshire by 2045, and our communities and natural environment are supported to adapt and thrive as the climate changes 1.3 In light of the experience following the introduction of a modal filter on Vinery Road, officers are of the opinion that the proposals are likely to result in some shift away from car use towards active travel uses and public transport, which is capable of having a positive impact on greenhouse gas emissions from transport. Ambition 3: Health inequalities are reduced 1.4 Greater levels of active travel usage, as explained above, which are likely to be delivered by the proposals, have been shown to contribute to better physical and mental health outcomes.”
“116. ….. A useful summation of the law was given by Simon Brown LJ in R v Somerset County Council, Ex p Fewings[1995] 1 WLR 1037 , 1049, in which he identified three categories of consideration, as follows: “… [T]he judge speaks of a ‘decision-maker who fails to take account of all and only those considerations material to his task’. It is important to bear in mind, however, … that there are in fact three categories of consideration. First, those clearly (whether expressly or impliedly) identified by the statute as considerations to which regard must be had. Second, those clearly identified by the statute as considerations to which regard must not be had. Third, those to which the decision-maker may have regard if in his judgment and discretion he thinks it right to do so. There is, in short, a margin of appreciation within which the decision-maker may decide just what considerations should play a part in his reasoning process.” 117. The three categories of consideration were identified by Cooke J in the New Zealand Court of Appeal in CREEDNZ Inc v Governor General[1981] NZLR 172 , 183: “What has to be emphasised is that it is only when the statute expressly or impliedly identifies considerations required to be taken into account by the [relevant public authority] as a matter of legal obligation that the court holds a decision invalid on the ground now invoked. It is not enough that a consideration is one that may properly be taken into account, nor even that it is one which many people, including the court itself, would have taken into account if they had to make the decision.”
“3.15 It should also be noted that in addition to the formal objections two petitions were received on this matter. Petitions relating to TROs are considered by the Executive Director of Place and Sustainability, in consultation with the local members.”
“Dear Recipient, I am writing to you because you objected to the proposed Mill Road Bridge Bus Gate Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). On October 4th, Cambridgeshire County Council held a special meeting of the Highways& Transport Committee to resolve the TRO. Councillors debated the issue and decided to implement the TRO after having considered the objections presented. The committee papers, including decision summary can be found here. o Mill Road Report o Appendix 1 Prior Consideration of Proposals o Appendix 2 Statement of Reasons o Appendix 3 Summary of Representations Received o Appendix 4 Equality Impact Assessment The Order was sealed on the 11th of October and has now been made. The reasons for having made the order are set out in the Statement of Reasons (Appendix 2 Statement of Reasons) and the report (Mill Road Report), summarised below: 1. For avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising. The scheme improves road safety. 2. For facilitating the passage on the road or other road for any class of traffic (including pedestrians). The scheme reduces congestion and encourages active travel. 3. For preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs. The scheme provides a more pleasant environment which benefits the local community. The scheme meets with the Authority’s corporate ambitions: Ambition 1 Net zero carbon emissions for Cambridgeshire by 2045. It is anticipated that there will be resulting shift away from car use towards active travel modalities and public transport. Ambition 2 Travel across the county is safer and more environmentally sustainable. Mill road features high level of traffic including pedestrians and cyclists resulting in congestion, concerns over road safety and conflicts between each other. Removing through movements encourages more environmentally friendly travel choices and safety benefits. Ambition 3 Health inequalities are reduced. This scheme is likely to deliver an increase in active travel usage which has been shown to contribute to better health outcomes.” o Mill Road Report o Appendix 1 Prior Consideration of Proposals o Appendix 2 Statement of Reasons o Appendix 3 Summary of Representations Received o Appendix 4 Equality Impact Assessment Ambition 1 Net zero carbon emissions for Cambridgeshire by 2045. It is anticipated that there will be resulting shift away from car use towards active travel modalities and public transport. Ambition 2 Travel across the county is safer and more environmentally sustainable. Mill road features high level of traffic including pedestrians and cyclists resulting in congestion, concerns over road safety and conflicts between each other. Removing through movements encourages more environmentally friendly travel choices and safety benefits. Ambition 3 Health inequalities are reduced. This scheme is likely to deliver an increase in active travel usage which has been shown to contribute to better health outcomes.”