Smith v Cotswold District Council

A failure by a local planning authority to give adequate reasons for granting planning permission does not require the court to grant permission for judicial review or quash the decision. The court retains a discretion. Relevant considerations include any prejudice caused by the failure and whether reconsideration presents a real possibility of a different decision.

Where the substantive planning decision has been found rational and there is no real possibility of a different outcome, the court may refuse permission because remittal would generate pointless expense. This does not diminish the authority’s obligation to give proper summary reasons under Town and Country Planning and General Development Procedure Order 1995.

The appellant challenged a local planning authority’s grant of permission to replace a detached garage with a single-storey extension to a cottage in a conservation area. Collins J found the authority’s substantive conclusion rational and sustainable. Although the reasons in the decision notice were arguably inadequate, he refused permission for judicial review because of delay and the claim’s limited prospects of success.

The appeal challenged only the finding on delay. It did not challenge the conclusion that the substantive planning decision was rational. The central issue became whether a reasons challenge should proceed when remittal offered no real possibility of a different planning decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. May LJ held that permission for judicial review should be refused because the challenge would produce only pointless expense. Hallett LJ and the Master of the Rolls agreed.

2. The substantive basis for the grant of planning permission had been found rational and sustainable, and that finding was not challenged on appeal. A successful reasons challenge could therefore lead only to remittal so that the authority could provide better reasons. On the material before the court, it was fanciful to suppose that the planning committee would then reach a different conclusion.

3. A reasons challenge does not succeed automatically whenever the reasons given are inadequate. The court should not grant relief merely to discipline one authority or encourage others. Planning authorities remain obliged to provide proper summary reasons, but the court retains a discretion whether to permit judicial review or quash a decision for non-compliance.

4. The principles in R (Wall) v Brighton and Hove City Council [2004] EWHC 2582 (Admin) and R (Tratt) v Horsham District Council [2007] EWHC 1485 Admin were adopted and approved. In exercising its discretion, the court may consider whether the failure caused prejudice and, more importantly, whether reconsideration presents a real possibility of a different decision. This case fell on the side of the spectrum where permission should be refused.

5. The Master of the Rolls confirmed that reasons were required by Article 22 of the Town and Country Planning and General Development Procedure Order 1995. A failure to comply engages the court’s discretion rather than compelling a quashing order. As the appeal could be resolved on that basis, it was unnecessary to decide the challenge to Collins J’s conclusion on delay.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed. Permission to apply for judicial review was refused because there was no real possibility that reconsideration would produce a different planning decision.

2. High Court, Chancery Division: Collins J refused permission to challenge the grant of planning permission. He found the substantive planning conclusion rational, regarded the reasons ground as arguably inadequate but unlikely to succeed, and also relied on delay.