Appeal against rejection of challenge to grant of permission for development of football ground.
Held: A common law duty on an authority to give reasons did arise in the particular circumstances of that case: where the development would have a ‘significant and lasting impact on the local community’, and involved a substantial departure from Green Belt and development plan policies, and where the committee had disagreed with its officers’ recommendations.
Elias LJ said: ‘The significance of that fact is not simply that it will often leave the reasoning obscure. In addition, the fact that the committee is disagreeing with a careful and clear recommendation from a highly experienced officer on a matter of such potential significance to very many people suggests that some explanation is required . . the dictates of good administration and the need for transparency are particularly strong here, and they reinforce the justification for imposing the common law duty.’
Judges:
Elias, Patten, Sales LJJ
Citations:
[2017] 1 WLR 3765, [2017] EWCA Civ 71, [2017] WLR(D) 105
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.575305