Tromans & Anor v Cannock Chase District Council

A local planning authority may change its view on a planning application where subsequent amendments, information, expert advice and consideration of the site provide a satisfactory explanation for the change. A committee is not required to give further reasons where it adopts an adequately reasoned planning officer’s report and the surrounding circumstances explain the decision. A previously refused proposal may properly be approved where material changes address the earlier reasons for refusal. A procedurally fair meeting and vote are not rendered unfair merely because a member of the public later challenges the vote count, particularly where the chair has already verified the count.

The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant council’s decision to grant planning permission for a detached dwelling, garage and retention of a temporary mobile home on land adjoining their property. A similar proposal had previously been refused, and planning officers had again recommended refusal when the application was deferred in January 2003. Following further negotiations, structural information and tree-protection measures, officers recommended approval. The committee approved the application on 2 April 2003.

The claimants alleged failure to consider relevant policies and previous reasons for refusal, irrationality, inadequate reasons, and procedural unfairness arising from the counting of votes.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimants failed to establish any public law error in the grant of planning permission.
2. The central question was whether there was a satisfactory explanation and sufficient reasoning for the change from the earlier refusal and recommendations for refusal. The planning officer’s earlier reports identified concerns about the building’s dominance, its relationship with the locality, and the effect on trees.
3. After the January 2003 deferral, further negotiations produced additional information about a retaining wall, protective fencing and tree retention. Expert advice confirmed that the design was satisfactory structurally and from an arboricultural perspective. The officers were therefore entitled to conclude that the previous concerns had been adequately addressed.
4. The committee had undertaken a site visit, heard oral representations, received advice from its officers and considered the revised report. In those circumstances, the change of recommendation and the decision to grant permission were sufficiently explained. The decision was neither irrational nor inconsistent with the statutory planning duty.
5. The voting challenge also failed. There was no suggestion of unfairness in the conduct of the meeting, the vote or the original count. The chair had checked the count with the council solicitor. The failure to conduct a further retrospective recount after an objection from a member of the public did not make the decision procedurally unfair, and the chair was entitled to continue with the committee’s business.