The applicant sought a judicial review of a grant of planning permission. She said that in the considerable time gap between the decision in principle, and the decision notice, several elements had changed requiring the decision to be reconsidered.
Held: Review was refused. The section required the authority to have regard to all material considerations in dealing with the application. ‘Dealing with’ was a wide phrase included anything done which bore in any way on the application, and included administrative acts of the officers. It could not be restricted to the formal actions involved in the grant of the permission. On this background, the authority had taken all the materials into consideration.
Jonathan Parker LJ defined what considerations were material in this context: ‘In my judgment a consideration is ‘material’, in this context, if it is relevant to the question whether the application should be granted or refused; that is to say if it is a factor which, when placed in the decision maker’s scales, would tip the balance to some extent, one way or the other. In other words, it must be a factor which has some weight in the decision making process, although plainly it may not be determinative. The test must, of course, be an objective one in the sense that the choice of material considerations must be a rational one, and the considerations chosen must be rationally related to land use issues.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Jonathon Parker
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 1370, Times 15-Oct-2002, Gazette 07-Nov-2002, [2003] JPL 431, [2003] 1 P and CR 19
Links:
Statutes:
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 70(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina (on the Application of Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council Admn 30-Oct-2001
The court refused an application for judicial review of the grant of planning permission. There had been a considerable delay between the decision to make the grant and the decision notice, during which time guidance had changed.
Held: The . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Regina (on the Application of Kides) v South Cambridgeshire District Council Admn 30-Oct-2001
The court refused an application for judicial review of the grant of planning permission. There had been a considerable delay between the decision to make the grant and the decision notice, during which time guidance had changed.
Held: The . .
Cited – Friends of Basildon Golf Course v Basildon District Council and Another Admn 23-Jan-2009
The council owned land on which it ran a golf course. It set out to privatise it and sought interest. An application was made for planning permission. The applicants objected to the planning permission, saying that the Environmental Impact . .
Cited – Hinds, Regina (on The Application of) v Blackpool Council Admn 17-Mar-2011
The council had resolved to grant planning permission for a development, but before the permission was actually granted the Secretary of State had written to planning authorities saying that he intended to abolish the ‘Regional Spatial Strategies’. . .
Cited – Dry, Regina (on The Application of) v West Oxfordshire District Council and Taylor Wimpey CA 21-Oct-2010
The guidance contained in Kides must be applied with common sense and with regard to the facts of the particular case. . .
Cited – Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire, Regina (on The Application of) v Hallam Land Management Ltd and Others Admn 27-May-2014
The claimant challenged a planning permission for a substantial development, and in particular the terms of the associated section 106 agreement. The claimant was concerened that the terms might allow a sufficient development to required additional . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177439