The Supreme Court has ruled that in cases where planning permission is granted, reasons for the grant of such planning permission may be required to be given, even where there is no statutory duty to do so. The cases of Dover DC v Campaign to Protect Rural England (2017) and Oakley v South Cambridgeshire District Council (2017) both centred around circumstances where planning permission was granted in the face of public opposition and against the advice of planning officers.
Lord Carnwath stated that ‘such decisions call for public explanation not just because of their immediate impact; but also because they are likely to have lasting relevance for the application of policy in future cases’.
Local Government Protocol
The Local Government Model Council Planning Code and Protocol (2013 update) requires planning committee members to understand the planning reasons leading to the decision in question. In light of the protocol the Court held that there was nothing unduly burdensome in requiring members of a planning committee to provide reasons for their decision in those cases where such reasons could not be gathered from the published documents.
Whether reasons are required to be provided is to be determined in all cases by reference to whether the reasons for the planning committee’s decision leaves any doubt as to what has been decided and why.
While Lord Carnwath was confident that local planning authorities would have no problem in identifying cases which would call for reasons for the decision to be given, the position in practice is unlikely to be so straightforward. Each planning application will need to be examined on its merits and there is likely to be uncertainty as to what particular combination of factors will call for reasons to be given.
In light of recent cases, local authorities should err on the side of caution in all but the most straightforward of cases. Where a planning committee grants a planning permission against officer advice or the development plan, the committee is advised to set out separate reasons for its decision in written form.
It will remain to be seen whether such a requirement and the failure to satisfy it leads to a greater number of challenges to committee decisions, but planning officers will need to ensure that they are alive to the requirement for their committee members to provide adequate reasons for any decision made contrary to their advice.
For more information please contact Sophie Harriman
Disclaimer: While we do all that is possible in terms of ensuring its accuracy, this blog contains general information only. Nothing in these pages constitutes legal advice. You need to consult a suitably qualified lawyer from the firm on any specific legal problem or matter.
Other Property Development Articles
The background to this case provides sober reading for any landowners of vacant sites. In this instance, around 2000 tonnes of waste including food and medical waste was deposited on Newark’s vacant land without [...]
Anybody entrusted with selling property on the behalf of a lender can take comfort in the robust approach shown by the Court.
Barr Ellison acted in a successful application to modify a restrictive covenant for a developer which otherwise prevented their redevelopment of a site in Cambridge.
Restrictive covenants can be a headache for developers who have otherwise found the perfect piece of land on which to carry out their dream development.
It is always preferable for leases to contain express reservations to alter, build and erect scaffolding in favour of a landlord who might want to develop at some point in the future.
A Court of Appeal decision serves as a warning to developers of the dangers of proceeding with developments in breach of a restrictive covenant.
It is a strict requirement that a party needs to be in compliance with all conditions precedent before serving a notice to complete a property transaction.
Appellants would be well advised to take care when introducing new evidence to a planning appeal, ensuring that it is available in good time for public inspection, usually via the local authority’s website.
The Supreme Court held that the landlord’s intention to demolish or reconstruct must be independent of the tenant’s claim for a new tenancy and not conditional upon it.
Barr Ellison once again sponsored the Innovation of the Year category at this year’s Cambridge Property Awards.