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 give reasons in a decision letter when allowing or dismissing a planning appeal. By their very nature, 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 (per Sullivan LJ R (Siraj) v. Kirklees Metropolitan Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1286 at paragraph [14]).
(2) A fuller summary of the reasons for granting planning permission may well be necessary ‘where members have granted planning permission contrary to a planning officer’s recommendation in order to allow members of the public to ascertain the lawfulness of the decision’ (per Sullivan LJ R (Siraj) v. Kirklees Metropolitan Council (supra) paragraph [16]).
(3) The fundamental test is ‘whether an interested person could see why planning permission is granted and what conclusion was reached on the principle issues’ (per Ouseley J in R (Midcounties Co-operative Ltd) v. Wyre Forest District Council’
Judges:
Lindblom J
Citations:
[2012] EWHC 855 (Admin), [2013] Env LR 1
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452414