In the King (on application of Paul Knights) v South Norfolk District Council [2025], Mr Knight was successful in his application for judicial review of the Defendant Council's decision to grant planning permission based upon a planning officer's report that had failed to take into account all material evidence about the impact of the development on the light enjoyed by Mr Knights' neighbouring property.
This dispute concerned a planning permission granted for the construction of a two-storey self-build home on the land adjacent to Mr Knights' property. Mr Knights objected to the development as he argued that it would cause an unacceptable loss of daylight and overshadowing to his home and garden.
Prior to planning permission being granted, Mr Knights had instructed an independent specialist surveyor to assess the proposed development's impact on the light to his property. The surveyor's report concluded that the development would result in a substantial reduction in vertical sky component and a significant loss of light to key windows as well as causing overshadowing to the garden.
The developer's consultants disputed the findings in the report. In response, Mr Knights commissioned a Rebuttal Report in response which directly addressed those consultants' criticisms and reaffirmed the conclusions of the original report along with a detailed explanation of how these had been arrived at. Mr Knights also invited the planning officer to visit his property, but that offer was refused. Lastly, Mr Knights' solicitors wrote a letter of objection to the Defendant Council.
The Defendant Council's planning officer then prepared a report, which concluded that the risk of overshadowing was reduced, minimal and acceptable whilst making no reference to daylight / sunlight or to the Rebuttal Report or the detailed technical points Mr Knights' consultants had made. The report recommended that planning permission be granted, which it duly was.
In response to this, Mr Knights sought judicial review of the decision on the basis that the planning officer had failed to consider or even refer to the Rebuttal Report. The Defendant Council decision-maker had then based its decision upon the planning officer's defective report, which constituted an error of law, as the decision-maker had failed to take into account a material consideration.
The Judge presiding over the hearing noted that:
- Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that in dealing with an application for planning permission the authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application and any other material considerations; and
- South Norfolk Local Plan Policy states that development should ensure a reasonable standard of amenity reflecting the character of the local area. In all cases particular regard will be paid to avoiding (among other things) loss of daylight, overshadowing and overbearing impact. The policy makes clear that planning permission will be refused where proposed development would lead to an excessive or unreasonable impact on existing neighbouring occupants.
The Judge decided that the matters in the Rebuttal Report were plainly a material consideration which had not been but which should have been taken into account by the planning officer, as they directly addressed an issue which was central to the planning judgment - how would the proposed development affect the light enjoyed by the neighbouring property?
As the Court could not tell what decision the Defendant Council would have made if it had taken account of these matters, the Judge resolved to quash the planning permission which had been granted.
This judgment shows that residential amenity and, in that respect, impact on light, can be material considerations when it comes to granting planning permission. It should be noted that this is not a case about rights to light, properly so-called, which are private law rights and which are not planning considerations. The case also serves as a reminder that decision-makers are best advised to consider and to show that they have considered all available and relevant evidence, especially when expert evidence is involved, as a failure to do so may render a decision unlawful.
