In JONES v ISLE OF ANGLESEY COUNTY COUNCIL (2024) EWHC 2582 (Admin) Mould J at para 32 restated the principles upon which the Court acts when faced with an allegation that a Planning Committee has ben misled by Officer advice. The Court will not read a Planning Officer’s Report with undue rigour, but with reasonable benevolence, bearing in mind that such Reports are written for Councillors with local knowledge. The question for the Court will always be whether, on a fair reading of the Report as a whole, the Officer had misled the Committee in a material way on a matter bearing on their decision, and the error had not been corrected.
Mould J found that there was no such error on this case. At paras 52 and 53 he stated that in considering whether the use of a building has changed from its former use to a new use, the decision-maker can and should take into account both the physical state of the building and its actual use or intended use or attempted use. Each of those matters is capable of being relevant to the question whether the use of the building has changed from its former use to a new use. The relative importance of any or all of those matters will depend on the circumstances of the given case.