Smith-Ryland v Warwick District Council

There is before the court today a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review. The claimant owns Plestowes (a farm) at Barford, Warwick. The farm is a mixed organic farm. The claimant’s application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused on paper by His Honour Judge Cooke on 15th July 2016.

The concern of the claimant is that if the property at Barn 1 is converted to residential use as presently contemplated any new owner or occupier would, or could, object to noise and/or odour emanating from the farm and seek to curtail or restrain otherwise perfectly normal and legal farming operations. I will return very briefly to that concern at the end of this ruling.

The claimant now challenges the decision on two discrete grounds relating to noise and odour. Mr Choongh today has argued that these are not to be construed as rationality challenges. The case is put in terms of failure to address relevant and material considerations; and a failure to give adequate reasons. In particular, as became clear as the argument evolved, it is said that there is no adequate explanation of how or why the mitigating conditions accepted by the Defendant would suffice to overcome the problems identified.

The defendant’s decision takes a number of points into consideration. It is important when considering the decision of a defendant, and the reports which give rise to it, to not treat them as if they were statutory documents. In accordance with well known principles they must be read pragmatically and in the round; undue weight must not be given to infelicities of language or stray inconsistencies. It is necessary for the court to look at the document in its totality to understand the real pith and substance of the decision.

In coming to the conclusion that permission should be granted, notwithstanding issues relating to noise, the defendant decided therefore to impose a condition. Condition 3 attached to the planning consent was in the following terms: