Chisnell & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Richmond Upon Thames & Anor

Previous planning decisions are material considerations, but they inform rather than fetter the later decision-maker’s judgment. A planning committee may reach a different conclusion, provided it recognises the importance of consistency and gives reasons for departing from the earlier decision. Previous delegated refusals do not create a privilege, legitimate expectation or guarantee of permission if a later proposal is considered afresh.

Where planning permission is granted, the statutory requirement to provide a summary of reasons is not ordinarily satisfied by a global reference to the officer’s report or committee minutes. The reasons should explain how and why the decision-maker resolved the material issues, including the weight given to relevant planning history. Failure to provide adequate reasons, together with material error in the committee’s approach, justified quashing the permission.

The claimants sought judicial review of the defendant council’s decision to grant the interested party planning permission for extensions and alterations to a neighbouring property.

They alleged that the planning committee had been misinformed about the reasons for two earlier refusals, had wrongly treated the previous decisions as restricting consideration of neighbour amenity objections, and had failed to comply with the requirement to give a summary of reasons and relevant development-plan policies when granting permission.

The central issues were the proper legal effect of previous planning decisions, the committee’s independence of judgment, and the adequacy of the reasons recorded for the grant.

1. The claim was allowed and the planning permission was quashed. The matter returned to the planning process for consideration by another committee. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs, subject to detailed assessment.
2. The reasons for the two earlier refusals included detriment to neighbouring occupiers, but the detriment identified was properly understood as arising from the proposal’s character as a separate or effectively separate residential unit. The earlier decisions did not determine the wider range of physical amenity objections, such as loss of light, outlook or privacy.
3. Planning history is a material consideration: Spackman v Secretary of State for the Environment and another [1977] 1 All ER 257. A previous appeal decision is likewise material: North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and others [1993] 3 PLR 113. Consistency is important, but the later decision-maker must exercise its own judgment. Previous decisions inform that judgment without binding or fettering it. Departure requires recognition of the importance of consistency and reasons explaining the departure.
4. The committee was wrongly advised that a material change in circumstances was needed before a new refusal ground based on physical impact on neighbours could be introduced. The correct question was whether, exercising its own judgment, the committee considered that physical impact justified refusal, while giving reasons if it departed from the previous position.
5. The advice created a real risk that the committee believed its judgment was bound by the earlier decisions. The claimants’ objections therefore might not have been considered according to law.
6. The requirement in Article 22 of the General Development Procedure Order 1995, as amended, to provide a summary of reasons was not satisfied by a general reference to the application report and minutes. A separate summary should ordinarily identify how the decision-maker resolved the material issues and the weight given to relevant planning history. This requirement also promotes disciplined and lawful decision-making.