Judicial Review Watt v Hackney – A Detailed Case Summary

The case of Watt v London Borough of Hackney is a judicial review that goes to the heart of how local authorities handle daylight and sunlight impacts in planning decisions. In this case, the High Court found that Hackney Council had erred in the way it assessed and presented daylight and sunlight issues to its planning committee. The judgment is important because it shows that, although judicial review does not re-weigh planning merits, courts will intervene where decision-makers have been misled or materially misinformed about the extent of harm.

For developers, surveyors, and residents, Judicial Review Watt v Hackney stands out as a reminder that planning permission can be struck down if officers’ reports fail to properly reflect technical findings or if councillors are misdirected on the seriousness of impacts.

Background of the Case

The dispute concerned a proposed development in Hackney for which the Council had granted planning permission. The scheme involved new residential accommodation in a dense urban location.

The claimant, Mr Watt, was a local resident who objected to the development, particularly because of its effect on daylight and sunlight to existing neighbouring homes. The developer had submitted assessments using the BRE Guidelines (BR 209), concluding that while there were breaches of recommended targets, these were within acceptable ranges when judged in context.

Hackney’s planning committee accepted those findings and resolved to grant permission. Mr Watt, however, believed that the committee had been significantly misled by the way the daylight and sunlight evidence was presented, and so brought a claim for judicial review.

Grounds of Challenge

The claimant advanced several grounds, of which the following were central:

Misapplication of BRE Guidance
It was argued that the planning officer’s report misrepresented the extent of transgressions against BRE 209 and did not convey to the committee the severity of the impacts.

Failure to Consider Material Considerations
Watt alleged that Hackney failed to properly assess the amenity harm from loss of daylight and sunlight, contrary to its legal duty.

Misleading the Committee / Procedural Unfairness
The key contention was that the committee report gave a misleading impression of the consultant’s analysis, downplaying breaches of guidance. This deprived members of the ability to make an informed judgment.

Inadequate Reasons
It was further contended that the committee’s decision lacked adequate reasoning in light of the seriousness of the daylight and sunlight impacts.

The Court’s Decision - Judicial Review Watt v Hackney

The High Court allowed the claim and quashed Hackney’s grant of planning permission. The judgment is notable for several reasons:

1. Misrepresentation of Daylight and Sunlight Impacts

The Court held that the planning officer’s report had materially misled the committee. It suggested compliance with BRE flexibility where in fact significant transgressions existed. Councillors were therefore not properly informed of the scale of harm.

2. Importance of Accuracy in Officer Reports

The judge emphasised that, while planning officers are not expected to provide exhaustive detail, reports must present the true picture. If impacts are downplayed or mischaracterised, that undermines the lawfulness of the decision.

3. BRE Guidance Still Flexible — But Requires Transparency

The Court acknowledged that BRE 209 is guidance, not law, and that departures may be justified in urban settings. However, flexibility does not excuse misdescription. Decision-makers must know when they are departing from targets, and why.

4. Judicial Review Principles Applied

Although judicial review is not about re-hearing planning merits, it is available where members have been materially misled. That threshold was crossed here.

Why the Claim Succeeded

The claim succeeded because Hackney’s committee was given a skewed impression of the daylight and sunlight impacts. Rather than being presented with a frank acknowledgement of the seriousness of transgressions, the report implied the scheme sat comfortably within accepted ranges.

That mischaracterisation went to the heart of the planning balance. Had members been properly informed, they might have weighed harms differently. The error was therefore material, justifying quashing of the permission.

Implications for Daylight and Sunlight Assessments

This case has important implications for both developers and local authorities:

Accuracy in Reporting: Officer reports must fairly reflect consultants’ findings. A gloss that softens the severity of breaches is vulnerable to challenge.

Transparency on BRE Departures: If targets are not met, that fact must be explicitly acknowledged. Flexibility is permissible, but councillors must be aware that they are exercising it.

Heightened Risk of Judicial Review: While courts are reluctant to interfere with planning judgments, they will intervene where members are misled or deprived of material facts.

Broader Lessons on Judicial Review

Not a Merits Appeal: The Court did not substitute its own planning judgment. It focused on whether the decision-making process was legally sound.

Misleading Reports Are Fatal: The judgment underscores that misleading or incomplete reports can be fatal to permissions.

Legal vs. Technical Breaches: Objectors cannot win by arguing “the scheme is bad on daylight grounds” alone. Success comes from showing a legal flaw in how impacts were presented or considered.

Key Takeaways - Judicial Review Watt v Hackney

The claim succeeded: The Court quashed Hackney’s grant of planning permission.

Daylight and sunlight impacts were misrepresented: The officer’s report downplayed breaches of BRE guidance.

Flexibility is not a licence to mislead: BRE targets are guidance, but transparency is essential.

Judicial review remains narrow: Courts will not re-weigh planning merits, but they will intervene if members are misinformed.

Developers must ensure accuracy: Consultants’ findings should be clearly and accurately presented in committee reports.

Conclusion - Judicial Review Watt v Hackney

The Judicial Review Watt v Hackney demonstrates that courts will quash planning permissions where decision-makers are misled about key impacts, particularly on sensitive issues like daylight and sunlight.

For developers, the message is clear: transparency and accuracy in daylight and sunlight assessments — and how these are reported to committees — are essential to safeguard permissions. For residents and objectors, the case illustrates that while judicial review is a difficult route, it can succeed if there is clear evidence of material misrepresentation.

Ultimately, Watt v Hackney is a cautionary tale for planning authorities: getting the process right matters just as much as the planning balance itself.

Need Help with BRE 209 Daylight & Sunlight Assessments?

At Anstey Horne, we are specialists in daylight and sunlight assessments. Whether you’re preparing a planning application, defending against objections, or reviewing your development potential, our team can help.

For more advice on how we can help support a planning application with a daylight & sunlight assessments please give us a call. If you would rather we contacted you please fill in our Contact Form and we will be in touch.

For more information on understanding all aspects of Daylight & Sunlight Assessments for planning see the collection of articles on our blog page.

For further advice on Daylight & Sunlight assessments for planning, please call our Daylight & Sunlight Enquiry Line on 020 4534 3138.

If you’d like us to call you, please fill in our Contact Us form and we will call you back.