AC-2024-MAN-000347 - [2025] EWHC 2630 (Admin)

For these reasons, I reject the Claimant’s contention that the planning officer’s advice to the Committee was materially misleading. The main thrust of the planning officer’s advice was that the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement were robust, achievable and their implementation could be secured by condition. For that purpose, she proposed a draft condition, which in its somewhat extended terms was later imposed as condition 9 of the planning permission. On a proper analysis of the terms of condition 9, it does have effect to secure the implementation of the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement. The Travel Plan to be submitted by the operator prior to first use of the development for approval must incorporate those measures. Following approval of the Travel Plan, those measures must be implemented by the operator within 6 months of first use of the development. The development is to be operated in accordance with the approved Travel Plan. Each of those specific requirements of condition 9 is capable of being enforced by the Defendant. On a proper understanding of its terms, condition 9 does enable the Defendant to enforce effective control of operation of the development through securing the implementation of those measures which, on the planning officer’s advice, would result in the acceptable operation of the proposed tourist attraction in terms of movement and activity.

Given my conclusion, it is unnecessary for me to consider in any detail the Defendant’s argument that implementation of the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement would be secured in any event through performance of the planning obligations imposed by the Deed. There was some dispute between the parties as to the effectiveness of the Deed, given that there is some confusion on the face of the Deed as to who is actually bound to perform the planning obligations which it seeks to impose. At the time of writing the Report, the Deed was in draft form. In paragraph 5.33, the planning officer advised that it added further reassurance that the revised Travel Plan was achievable and that the Interested Party was committed to implementation of its proposed measures. In my view, that was a reasonable position for her to take. It is, however, clear from that paragraph of the Report that she relied primarily on the imposition of condition 9 as the basis for securing the implementation of the measures proposed in the Travel Plan Commitment Statement.

For these reasons, ground 2 must be rejected.