Chaplin & Ors, R (on the application of) v Aylesbury Vale District Council & Anor

A local planning authority is not generally required to give reasons for granting planning permission where the statutory scheme requires reasons for refusals and appeal decisions but imposes no duty for grants. The statutory duty should not be extended by analogy. A previous refusal of an identical application does not, by itself, require reasons for a later grant or make the later decision unlawful. Members may reach a different planning judgment after a site inspection and further advice, provided they act in good faith and without irrelevant considerations. A particular obligation to give reasons may arise in other circumstances, but none arose here. Nor did the earlier refusal create a legitimate expectation that objectors would have a public inquiry.

Residents appealed against Keene J’s refusal to quash planning permission granted by Aylesbury Vale District Council for two houses at Barracks Farm. The Council had first refused an identical application, then granted the later application after members inspected the site and received further advice. No reasons were given for the change.

The appeal concerned whether the statutory planning scheme, the earlier refusal, or common-law principles required reasons for the later grant. It also concerned whether the objectors had a legitimate expectation that the first refusal would remain in place so that the applicant’s appeal could proceed to a public local inquiry.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. Lord Justice Pill gave the judgment. Lord Justices Waller and Nourse agreed.

1. The statutory context was decisive. Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gave an applicant a right of appeal against refusal, but no equivalent appeal existed for a person aggrieved by a grant. Article 22(1) of the General Development Procedure Order 1995 required reasons for refusal or conditions, while paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 required reasons for a planning inspector’s appeal decision. Parliament had imposed no corresponding duty for a grant. The court therefore refused to create a general common-law duty by analogy, while leaving open the possibility that a duty might arise in particular circumstances.
2. The first refusal concerned essentially one planning issue: whether the site lay within the existing built-up area of Nash. This was a matter of planning judgment on which reasonable decision-makers could differ. After the site visit and further advice, the committee was entitled to reach a different view. There was no evidence of bad faith or irrelevant considerations. The members were also entitled to consider the practical difficulty of defending an appeal against the earlier refusal.
3. The earlier refusal created no legitimate expectation that the later application would be withheld so that objectors could address an inspector. No such obligation could be implied into the statutory scheme.
4. The court considered the observation in R v Poole Borough Council ex p Beebee [1991] 2 PLR 27, expressly described there as obiter, but independently concluded that no general obligation to give reasons existed. It was unnecessary to decide the wider issues concerning later explanations or collective reasoning by planning committees.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed with costs: [1997] EWCA Civ 2262.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Keene J refused the application for judicial review and declined to quash the planning permission on 5 July 1996.