Appeal against grant of permission to bring judicial review of a planning decision.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and the permission quashed. Laws LJ pointed to three particular factors as calling for clear reasons: the ‘pressing nature’ of the AONB policy as expressed in the NPPF para 115-6 (‘the highest status of protection’); the departure from the officers’ recommendation; and the specific duty imposed by the EIA regulations. Although he noted the relative ‘thinness’ of the material available to the committee on the viability issue, he relied principally on the failure of the committee to assess and explain the degree of harm to the AONB, having regard to the strictness of the policy and the strong view of harm taken by the officers. The only reference to this issue in the minutes spoke of the need to assess whether the advantages ‘outweighed’ the harm to the AONB, wrongly implying that it was simply a question of ‘striking a balance’. Further the reference to ‘minimising the harm’ by ‘effective screening’ took no account of the officers’ view that the change of levels to the east would mean that ‘over time, screening would be largely ineffective’.
Judges:
Laws, Simon LJJ
Citations:
[2016] EWCA Civ 936
Links:
Statutes:
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Campaign To Protect Rural England (CPRE), Regina (on The Application of) v Dover District Council Admn 16-Dec-2015
The planning authority granted permission for a substantial development against the advice of its officers. Judicial review was now sought of the process.
Held: The request was refused. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Dover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Judicial Review
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.569493