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 as their officer has failed to take into account all of the evidence which had been submitted about the impact of the development on the rights of 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 light and overshadowing to his home and garden.
Prior to planning permission being granted, Mr Knights had instructed an independent right to light 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.
The developer's consultants disputed the findings in the report. Mr Knights commissioned a Rebuttal Report in response which directly addressed the consultants' criticisms and reaffirmed the conclusions of the original report.
The Defendant Council's planning officer then prepared a report recommending 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 which constituted an error of law, as they 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 day light, 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 Rebuttal Report was plainly a material consideration which should have been taken into account by the planning officer, as it 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 planning officer's report was silent on the existence of the Rebuttal Report, the Court could not safely infer that it had been taken into account which left the Judge with no other option than to quash the planning permission which had been granted.
This judgment is a reminder that residential amenity and, in particular, impact on light can be material considerations when it comes to granting planning permission and serves as a reminder that decision-makers must consider all available evidence, especially when expert evidence is involved, as a failure to do so, can render a decision unlawful.
