🧭 Legal Recognition: Preliminary Review Suggests Material Issues
Richard Buxton Solicitors — a leading UK law firm in environmental, planning, and public law — were invited to give a preliminary view on the Judicial Review (JR) potential of East Hampshire District Council’s (EHDC) approval of application 55318/001 (Beechlands Road, Medstead).
Their founder, Richard Buxton, responded personally. In a voicemail message, he stated:
“My gut reaction is that… it seems to me the sort of situation where you’ve identified a problem which does need to be looked at properly.”
This response was based on an initial three-point summary table outlining the core legal concerns:
- Misapplication of the Tilted Balance
- Improper Officer Influence / Legal Misdirection
- EIA Screening Misuse / Expired Opinion
| Issue | Summary | Supporting Evidence / Legal Authority |
| 1. Misapplication of the Tilted Balance | During the EHDC Planning Committee meeting on 20 March 2025, Cllr Angela Glass — described in the meeting as having “significant experience of determining applications under the tilted balance” — stated: “…I really feel — however much my heart may say that fields perhaps should not be developed — I actually think that if this were to go to appeal, we would probably lose that appeal, because I think this would be deemed to be acceptable — whether sustainable or not…” Full video recording:🔗 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3KU94j2bgE&t=14s | R (Smech Properties Ltd) v Runnymede BC [2016] EWHC 2512 (Admin) – confirms planning judgment must not be replaced by speculative reasoning.NPPF 11(d)(ii) – tilted balance only applies if adverse impacts do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh benefits. |
| 2. Improper Officer Influence / Legal Misdirection | When councillors raised concerns about walkability, infrastructure, and sustainability, the Chief Planning Officer repeatedly cited past appeal outcomes, implying that similar refusals had been overturned and discouraging site-specific objections. This may have shifted the committee’s rationale toward appeal risk avoidance rather than policy-based planning judgment. Video recordings: 🔗 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z43D1xxqdWA&t=39s 🔗 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnhCrTDZkpU&t=89s | R (Wright) v Resilient Energy [2014] EWHC 3136 (Admin) – fairness and transparency must characterise the decision process.R (Morge) v Hampshire CC [2011] UKSC 2 – councillors must make their own decisions, not defer to officers. RTPI Code of Conduct – requires planning officers to act impartially. NPPF Paragraph 38 and PPG para 19 – decisions must be made based on the development plan and site-specific material considerations. |
| 3. EIA Screening Misuse / Expired Opinion | The land was previously the subject of an EIA screening request in 2013 by Foreman Homes. In 2024, Bargate Homes applied to develop the same land (62 dwellings), and officers claimed that no new screening was needed because the number of homes was lower than the 144 originally proposed. However: – The 2013 opinion was issued under older regulations; – Screening opinions expire after 3 years under the 2017 EIA Regulations; – EIA opinions are not transferrable between applicants; – Cumulative impact was not assessed, despite 48.14% population growth in Medstead (2011–2021), absorbing over 8.36% of all new EHDC housing. | EIA Regulations 2017, Regulation 6(6) – screening opinions valid for 3 years only.Schedule 3 of EIA Regs – cumulative impacts must be assessed.Case law: A failure to properly screen or assess significant effects may render a grant of permission unlawful.Disproportionate growth in Medstead should have triggered a reassessment. |
Following this feedback, two further JR Grounds were submitted. But notably, Mr Buxton’s legal instincts were triggered even from the initial summary alone, indicating clear preliminary merit.
This contrasts sharply with the conclusions in the Tilbury Report, commissioned by Medstead Parish Council (MPC), which attempts to downplay or dismiss all legal concerns. This publication explains why Tilbury’s review is procedurally inadequate, legally unstructured, and institutionally conflicted — and why MPC should not rely on it when deciding whether to support JR proceedings.
⚖️ 1. Misapplication of the Tilted Balance – Dismissed Without Legal Test
Council Statement:
Cllr Angela Glass stated during the EHDC Planning Committee meeting on 20 March 2025:
“…if this were to go to appeal, we would probably lose… whether sustainable or not.”
This is a clear misapplication of NPPF Paragraph 11(d)(ii), which allows approval only where adverse impacts do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh benefits.
Tilbury’s comment:
“There was nothing… that suggested to me that the proper application of the ‘tilted balance’ was not understood.”
Why this fails:
He cites no legal framework, applies no test, and ignores on-record statements. His defence relies entirely on assumption — not analysis.
⚠️ 2. Improper Officer Influence – Legal Standards Unacknowledged
What happened:
Officers repeatedly cited past appeal outcomes to discourage councillors from applying their own site-specific judgment.
Tilbury’s response:
“Planning officers and councillors frequently discuss how likely it is they’d win an appeal…”
Why this fails:
Citing appeal precedent is lawful. But using appeal outcomes to suppress policy-based objections is not — a distinction recognised in Wright, Morge, and PPG Paragraph 19. Tilbury does not address this at all.
🏞️ 3. EIA Screening Misuse – Core Facts Omitted
Key facts ignored:
- Officers relied on a 2013 screening opinion issued under older regulations.
- That opinion expired in 2017, under Regulation 6(6) of the 2017 EIA Regulations.
- Screening opinions are not transferrable between developers.
- No fresh screening was conducted in 2024 despite massive cumulative growth in Medstead.
Tilbury’s review:
Makes no mention of expiry, non-transferability, or cumulative obligations.
Why this fails:
This is not a minor oversight — it’s a total failure to address the legal basis for challenging the decision.
📄 4. Failure to Provide Reasons – Misrepresented in Conclusion
The decision conflicted with multiple development plan policies, applied the tilted balance, attracted major public opposition, and bypassed EIA. These are all triggers for a duty to provide reasons under Oakley, Berkeley, and CPRE Kent.
Tilbury’s view:
“The committee believed it was in accordance with the development plan… that would seem sufficient reason.”
Why this fails:
That is factually incorrect. The development plan was acknowledged as out of date, and the approval relied on NPPF Paragraph 11(d) — a national override. Under Oakley, this creates a duty to explain. Tilbury’s conclusion misstates the legal basis of the decision.
🧩 5. Institutional Conflict – Not Declared
Steve Tilbury is a long-time consultant and trainer to local planning authorities, including those subject to legal scrutiny. He reviewed the legality of a decision made using processes he has helped design and promote.
Why this matters:
This engages the principle of nemo judex in causa sua — no one should be a judge in their own cause. An independent review of legal risk cannot be entrusted to someone professionally embedded in the system under review.
🧾 Conclusion: Why Tilbury’s Review Is Not Fit for Purpose
Steve Tilbury’s report fails to meet the minimum standards required for evaluating legal risk:
- ❌ It avoids case law.
- ❌ It applies no structured legal test.
- ❌ It misrepresents facts and omits critical obligations.
- ❌ It reflects institutional alignment, not legal neutrality.
By contrast, Richard Buxton’s preliminary review — even based on a three-point summary — identified serious concerns worthy of counsel-level scrutiny.
📣 It is time for Medstead Parish Council to set aside funds to obtain proper legal advice from an independent expert — not rely on reviews that are structurally and legally unfit for purpose. The preliminary reaction from one of the UK’s most respected public law firms has already confirmed that the concerns raised are “problems which need to be looked at properly.” That is the direction MPC should now follow — with transparency, legal integrity, and public accountability.
