Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd: Admn 22 Aug 2013

The campaign company sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent granting permission to develop nearby land as a golf course.
Held: The application succeeded. The Secretary of State in preserving the effect of certain policies had also preserved the supporting text and reasoned justification: ‘it makes no sense to preserve naked ‘policies’ shorn of their intellectual underpinning, interpretative context and expressly factual matrix and justifications. It makes even less sense to seek to preserve the stark wording of policies only, but then somehow proscribe any resort in the future to any ‘map’ or ‘reasoned justification’ or ‘other descriptive or explanatory matter’ or ‘supporting text’ which it was intended by the framers of the policy should be had as a necessary aid to understanding, interpreting and implementing the policy. In my view, there is no conceptual difficulty in saving only ‘the policy’ but permitting, and expecting, consideration of it in its appropriate textural context.’ Applying those properly here the decision could not stand. The requirement to demonstrate a need for such facilities remained, and this was wider than the private interests of those seeking to establish the new course. The plan itself was so long established that it could not now in law be challenged.
The Council majority had failed to apply the ‘very special circumstances’ test when deciding that the Green Belt policy had not been breached, failing to recognise that there was ‘inappropriate development’. Nowhere was there any mention of the Council majority being satisfied that there were ‘very special circumstances’ justifying the ‘inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt. There was no explanation as to why the Council majority disagreed with the planning officers’ advice. The ‘circumstances’ must be ‘very special’ as opposed to common or garden planning considerations. They must also be ‘not merely special, in the sense of being unusual or exceptional, but very special’. The absence of harm or the fact that the harm caused is ‘slight’ ‘will rarely be sufficient to constitute very special circumstances’.

Haddon-Cave J
[2013] EWHC 2582 (Admin), [2013] WLR(D) 340
Bailii, Justiciary, WLRD
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1999, Town and Country Planning Act 1990
England and Wales
CitedResidents Against Waste Site Ltd v Lancashire County Council and Another Admn 7-Nov-2007
The company, formed to oppose it, sought judicial review of the respondent’s decision to grant planning permission for a waste disposal facility. . .
CitedWalton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
CitedCala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Admn 16-Dec-2010
Local authorities were presently bound to plan future housing developments in accordance with Regional Spatial Strategies which the new government intended to abolish. The respondent had previously been told by the court that primary legislation was . .
CitedTurner v Secretary of State of the Environment 1974
Ackner J upheld the standing of the chairman of a local preservation society who had appeared at a public local inquiry by permission of the inspector to challenge the decision. Ackner J said: ‘I see no merit in the proposition that a person who has . .
CitedRegina v HM Inspector of Pollution and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex Parte Greenpeace Ltd CA 30-Sep-1993
A campaigning organisation was challenging an official decision which, if stayed, would have adverse financial implications for a commercial company (British Nuclear Fuels PLC) which was not a party to the proceedings. Brooke J had refused a stay. . .
CitedRegina v Leicester County Council Hepworth Building Products Limited and Onyx (UK) Limited, ex parte Blackfordby and Boothcorpe Action Group Ltd Admn 15-Mar-2000
. .
CitedStringer v Ministry of Housing and Local Government 1970
The material considerations to be allowed for by the local authority in exercising its planning functions are considerations of a planning nature, ‘all considerations relating to the use and development of land are considerations which may, in a . .
CitedTesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 11-May-1995
Three companies had applied for permission to build retail food superstores in Witney. The Inspector had recommended Tesco’s proposal, but the respondent rejected it. Tesco’s had offered to provide by way of a section 106 agreement full funding for . .
CitedRegina v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods CA 7-Feb-1997
The claimant renewed his application for leave to appeal against rejection of his challenge to the grant of planning permission for a substantial redevelopment of land near his home.
Held: Brooke LJ considered the interpretation of planning . .
CitedRegina v Newbury District Council ex parte Blackwell Admn 29-Oct-1997
Where members of a planning committee reject their planning officers’ advice ‘there must be a rational and discernable basis for doing so’. . .
CitedCity of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland and Another; Same v Same (Conjoined Appeals) HL 31-Oct-1997
The Listed buildings registers are to be read consistently; the trading level is a material consideration in listed buildings consent applications. The weight to be given to a material consideration once identified was a matter of judgment for the . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hindley Admn 18-Dec-1997
The Home Secretary has the power to fix the tariff sentence for a lifer at her whole life where that was needed in order to satisfy the requirements of retribution and of deterrence.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ said: ‘I can see no reason, in . .
CitedNewsmith Stainless Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions Admn 1-Feb-2001
Application was made to quash an inspector’s decision.
Held: An inspector’s decision was not to be challenged as to its facts. In any case where the expert tribunal is the fact finding body the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness or . .
CitedMidcounties Co-Operative Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Wyre Forest District Council Admn 27-Mar-2009
Ousely J set out the basic standard for the reasons to be given by a planning authority for its decision saying that: ‘The fundamental test is ‘whether an interested person could see why planning permission is granted and what conclusion was reached . .
CitedSiraj, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Metropolitan Council and Another CA 21-Oct-2010
A local planning authority’s summary reasons for granting permission do not present a full account of the local planning authority’s decision-making process. However, a fuller summary of the reasons for granting planning permission may well be . .
CitedTesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council SC 21-Mar-2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not . .
CitedThreadneedle Property Investments Ltd and Another v Southwark Borough Council and Another Admn 30-Mar-2012
Lindblom J set out three statements of the principles relevant to the issue of reasons: ‘1) A local planning authority’s obligation to give summary reasons when granting permission is not to be equated with the Secretary of State’s obligation to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.514467