Application for judicial review, seeking an order quashing a grant of planning permission dated by the defendant for the demolition of an existing house and its replacement by eight self-contained apartments. The notice granting planning permission did not state the relevant policies which had been applied in coming to the decision. Attempts had later been made to elicit the reasons from the committee members.
Held: The grant of permission was quashed. The method by which the permission had been promulgated was unlawful. The rules required the information to be given to allow greater involvement of the public in the planning procedure. The officers might have taken the permission back to the same committee at the earliest opportunity to remedy the defunct, but that had not been done.
Sullivan J explained: ‘Over the years the public was first enabled and then encouraged to participate in the decision-making process. The fact that, having participated, the public was not entitled to be told what the local planning authority’s reasons were, if planning permission was granted, was increasingly perceived as a justifiable source of grievance, which undermined confidence in the planning system . . ‘
Times 16-Nov-2004,  EWHC 2582 (Admin),  4 PLR 115,  JPL 807,  1 P and CR 33,  46 EG 150
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Ermakov CA 14-Nov-1995
The applicant, having moved here from Greece, applied for emergency housing. The Council received no reply to its requests for corroboration sent to Greece. Housing was refused, but the officer later suggested that the real reason was that the . .
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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 May 2021; Ref: scu.219546