Welsh council to appeal High Court quashing of second homes Article 4 direction over “misleading” officers’ report

In Enlli Angharad Williams, R (on the application of) v Cyngor Gwynedd [2025] EWHC 2395, Mr Justice Eyre found that an officer’s report and accompanying documents failed to properly detail the nature of a policy aimed at curbing the number of holiday lets and second homes in the borough.

The council’s cabinet member for environment, Craig ab Iago, said the council was “extremely disappointed” in the decision and vowed to pursue an appeal.

The case was brought by local objector Enlli Williams, who challenged the cabinet's July 2024 decision to confirm an Article 4 direction under the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

The direction removes permitted development rights, which otherwise provided that a change of use between class C3 (primary residences) and C5 (second homes) or C6 (short-term holiday lettings) or a mix of those uses was permitted development.

Mr Justice Pepperall gave permission for her judicial review application to proceed in March this year, after being "just persuaded" that a challenge should go ahead.

At the High Court, the claimant argued that an officer's report led the cabinet to believe that the effect of approving the article 4 direction would be that all changes from primary residence to second home or to short-term letting or to a mix of those uses would require planning permission.

Summarising the argument in his judgment, Mr Justice Eyre said: "The members of the cabinet were not alerted to the fact that such of those changes which did not amount to material changes of use would remain outside the Defendant's control.

"The extent of the control given by the Article 4 direction was, the claimant says, a material consideration.

"She says that as a consequence the members were misled in a material respect and failed to take account of a material consideration."

However, the council argued that, when read properly, the officer's report and the accompanying papers adequately informed the cabinet members of the effect of the Article 4 direction.

It also stated that it was clear that not all changes of use would be brought under the council's control and that the effect would solely be the removal of permitted developmental rights.

In addition, it argued that the same decision would have been made even if the limited effect of the Article 4 direction had been spelt out. As a consequence, relief should be refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

In a decision handed down on 24 September, Mr Justice Eyre upheld the claim.

He found that "several factors" supported the claimant's argument that the report and accompanying documents were materially misleading.

The judge added: "The making of the Article 4 direction gave the Defendant control over changes between classes C3 and C5 and C6, which were material changes of use, but not between such changes which were not material.

"That was a significant difference in circumstances where, as explained in [Moore v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] JPL 192], not every change from a private residence to commercial letting would be a material change of use.

"The members of the cabinet needed to be made aware that the Article 4 direction did not bring non-material changes of use within the scope of planning control.

"The papers did not do that but instead, when read realistically, gave the incorrect impression that all changes would be controlled."

He also highlighted a letter sent to residents about the direction that "said in terms that any change of use would require planning permission".

He later added: "The position, therefore, is that the members of the cabinet were materially misled on a matter bearing on the decision which was, therefore, reached on a false basis.

"The Decision is to be quashed unless relief is precluded by section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981."

Eyre J also rejected the council's argument that relief should be refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, concluding that he could not be satisfied it was "highly likely" the outcome would have been the same despite the nature of the reports and documentation considered by cabinet members.

The judge said he will hear submissions on what relief should be handed down at a later date.

Cllr Craig ab Iago, Cyngor Gwynedd Environment Cabinet Member,said: “As a Council, we have been determined to do everything in our power to ensure that the people of Gwynedd have access to suitable homes in their communities. To achieve this, we have taken proactive steps including introducing the Article 4 Direction to manage the significant number of homes that are being lost to become second homes or short-term holiday lets.  

Adam Carey