Manby v Hackney: Practical Lessons for Local Planning Authorities and Developers

A recent High Court judgment provides an important reminder of the approach local planning authorities ("LPAs") and developers should take when determining planning applications and working up planning applications, particularly where supplementary planning documents ("SPDs") are engaged.

In Manby v Hackney [2026] EWHC 1543 (Admin), the High Court quashed the grant of planning permission after concluding that the officer's report failed to demonstrate proper consideration of a material planning consideration contained within an SPD. The decision reinforces the importance of ensuring that delegated officer reports do more than simply identify relevant policies and guidance. They must show how those matters have been assessed and what weight has been attributed to them.

Background

The application sought planning permission for a single-storey lower ground floor extension, an upper ground floor rear extension and a mansard roof extension.

The LPA's development plan included policies requiring that:

• development should be appropriate to its location;
• development should not result in unacceptable adverse impacts;
• impacts on neighbouring amenity should be balanced against the merits of the proposal – for example, daylight, sunlight, overlooking, privacy and overshadowing are all relevant to amenity; and
• residential extensions should have regard to the relevant SPD, described as a detailed design guide intended to assist in the determination of planning applications.

The relevant SPD in this case, included a specific requirement that extensions should comply with the "45-degree rule" to minimise overshadowing and protect neighbouring residential amenity.

The applicant's Heritage Statement expressly addressed the 45-degree rule, stating that the proposal complied with the requirement in relation to the neighbouring property, No. 89.

The owner of No. 89 objected to the application, contending, amongst other matters, that the proposal failed to comply with the SPD's 45-degree rule in respect of their neighbouring property and would adversely affect neighbouring amenity.

The planning officer acknowledged the objections from the claimant within the delegated officer's report but, without further analysis of the applicant’s evidence and substantive compliance with the guidance in the SPD, proceeded to grant permission.

The objecting neighbour challenged the decision by way of judicial review.

The Officer's Report

As above, the officer's report referred to the neighbour’s objection as well as the 45-degree rule and stated that it would be used as a guide when assessing the acceptability of rear extensions. The report concluded that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity and recommended that planning permission be granted.

During the proceedings, the officer provided a witness statement explaining that the report did not expressly determine whether the proposal complied with the 45-degree rule and that

she could not recall whether she had reached a view on that issue when preparing the report.

The Legal Framework

The Court considered the statutory duties governing planning decision-making, including:

1. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which requires LPA's to have regard to:

a. the provisions of the development plan;

b. any local finance considerations; and

c. any other material planning considerations.

2. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The SPD constituted a material planning consideration, engaging both Section 70(2) and Section 38(6).

Decision

The Court concluded that the LPA had failed to lawfully discharge its duty to have regard to a material planning consideration and quashed the planning permission.

The judgment emphasises that identifying a material planning consideration is not, in itself, sufficient. Decision-makers must demonstrate that they have engaged with that consideration and assessed the weight it should carry in the overall planning balance.

As the Court observed:

"Merely noting the existence of a material consideration without considering how much weight, if any, to be given to it would not be a proper exercise in having regard to it."

Although the officer's report referred to the 45-degree rule, it contained no assessment of whether the proposal complied with it, nor any explanation of how the SPD informed the officer's recommendation. The Court concluded that simply stating that the SPD would be used as a guide was inadequate where there was no evidence that it had in fact been applied.

Practical Lessons for Local Planning Authorities and Developers

The decision provides a number of practical reminders for LPAs and developers, particularly where applications are determined under delegated powers.

Firstly, officer reports should do more than identify relevant SPDs or other material planning considerations. They should demonstrate that those considerations have been actively considered and explain how they have influenced the recommendation.

Secondly, where an SPD contains a specific assessment criterion—such as the 45-degree rule—the report should record whether the proposal complies with that criterion. If it does not, the report should explain why permission is nevertheless justified, including the weight given to the SPD in the overall planning balance.

Conclusion

Manby v Hackney serves as a timely reminder that the statutory duty to have regard to material planning considerations requires genuine engagement rather than mere acknowledgment. While the weight to be afforded to a material consideration remains a matter for the decision-maker, the decision-making process must demonstrate that the consideration has been evaluated and factored into the planning judgment.

For local planning authorities, the case underlines the importance of well-reasoned delegated reports that clearly explain how relevant policies, SPDs and other material considerations have informed the recommendation. Doing so not only promotes transparent decision-making but also reduces the risk of successful legal challenge.

For developers the case serves as a reminder of the importance of anticipating and responding to objections, and of developing case management strategies that clearly signpost to decision-makers how a scheme addresses and achieves policy compliance where objections are raised.

How can Tozers help?

Tozers' Planning Team regularly advises local planning authorities and developers on risk-proofing application packs, officer reports and decision-making to ensure planning decision-making is robust and resilient to challenge. If you would like to discuss any of the issues arising from this judgment, please contact a member of the team.

Contact our legal experts