Tratt, R (on the application of) v Hutchison 3G UK Ltd.

A planning authority granting permission must provide a summary of its reasons and the relevant development-plan policies under article 22(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. A bare statement that a proposal accords with the development plan is generally inadequate where substantial objections have been raised. The summary must address, in concise form, the principal issues considered, such as need, siting and visual amenity. Reasons cannot be supplied merely by directing readers to other documents. A breach does not automatically require quashing, but the court must consider prejudice, the possibility of a different decision on reconsideration and the public interest. Here, the permission was quashed because the defective reasons were coupled with a realistic possibility that fuller consideration of siting could produce a different result.

The claimant sought judicial review of Horsham District Council’s grant of planning permission to Hutchison 3G UK Ltd for a 25-metre telecommunications mast near her home. She alleged that the Council misunderstood the need for the mast, failed to consider whether it could be sited further into the copse, and gave inadequate reasons for granting permission.

The court rejected the first two grounds. The coverage information enabled the Council to conclude that need had been established, and the material before the committee did not require it to consider the suggested alternative position within the copse. The central issue was whether the decision notice complied with article 22(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, and, if not, whether relief should be refused in the court’s discretion.

1. Grounds concerning need and siting. The Council was entitled to conclude that need had been established despite an inaccurate description of the area to be covered. The committee had the relevant coverage plots and could form its own judgment. The Council also did not err in failing to address expressly the possibility of moving the mast further into the copse, since the claimant’s representations did not clearly raise that issue before the committee.
2. Reasons required by article 22(1). Article 22(1)(b)(i) required a summary of the reasons for granting permission together with a summary of the relevant policies and proposals. Identifying policies by number, without indicating their relevant subject matter, was insufficient. The reasons also had to deal, in summary form, with the substantial issues forming part of the application’s consideration. In this case those issues included need, siting and visual amenity, and health concerns. A statement that the proposal was consistent with the development plan did not suffice.
3. The statutory requirement concerned the decision notice itself. It was insufficient to require the reader to consult the officer’s report, minutes or other documents to understand why permission had been granted. The court adopted the approach in R (Chisnell) v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, [2005] EWHC 134. The distinction between summary reasons for a grant and full reasons for a refusal did not alter the common purpose of enabling an interested person to understand the basis of the decision and assess a possible legal challenge. The court also accepted the relevant guidance in R (Ling) (Bridlington) Limited and others v East Riding of Yorkshire Council, [2006] EWHC 1604 (Admin), subject to that qualification.
4. Relief. A failure to provide adequate reasons does not automatically require quashing. Relevant considerations include prejudice, whether reconsideration might produce a different decision, and the public interest. The issue of relocating the mast further into the copse had not been properly addressed, and the claimant’s offer to assist with access raised a realistic possibility of a different decision. Following the approach in R (Wall) v Brighton & Hove City County, [2005] 1 P&CR 566, the court quashed the planning permission. The claim succeeded, with costs agreed at £18,796.30.