Wates, R (on the application of) v Surrey County Council

Inappropriate development in the Green Belt may be permitted only where other considerations clearly outweigh the harm, thereby amounting to very special circumstances. The expression is not a closed category, but the decision-maker’s conclusion remains subject to judicial review on Wednesbury grounds.

Where a proposal is justified by its alleged uniqueness or lack of alternatives, the authority must make an adequate investigation and must accurately present its scope to the committee. Reasons under Article 22 may be concise, but they must enable an interested person to understand why permission was granted. The court may examine supporting material to test the legality and reasonableness of reasons contained in the decision letter.

The claimant sought judicial review of Surrey County Council’s conditional planning permission for the redevelopment of its Outdoor Education Centre at High Ashurst, in the Green Belt and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The claimant argued that the Council had failed to demonstrate very special circumstances, had acted irrationally in its assessment of alternative sites and access, and had breached a legitimate expectation that he would be notified and allowed to speak at the relevant meeting. The central issues were the adequacy of the reasons, the lawfulness of the site comparison exercise, the effect of planning conditions, and procedural fairness.

1. Very special circumstances. The development was inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Very special circumstances are not a closed category. Other material considerations have a distinct qualitative status and must clearly outweigh the harm caused by inappropriateness and any other harm. The Council’s reasons, read in context, sufficiently conveyed that conclusion, despite not using the preferred phrase.
2. Reasons. Article 22 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 requires a summary of the reasons for granting permission. The requirement must not be read over-legalistically. The decision letter itself must contain intelligible reasons, but the court may examine the officer’s report when testing whether those reasons are lawful and reasonable.
3. Alternative sites. The Council relied materially on the alleged uniqueness of High Ashurst and the absence of a suitable alternative. It had confined its investigation to sites owned or leased by the Education Department, although the evidence acknowledged that other potential County Council sites existed. The committee was therefore given a materially inaccurate impression that all County Council-owned sites had been considered. That flaw made the decision unlawful.
4. Access and use conditions. The access concerns had been considered and could lawfully be addressed through conditions, including a travel plan and a prohibition on coach access. The conditions were not irrational. The user condition, read with the 300-visitor limit, did not render the permission unlawful.
5. Legitimate expectation and outcome. The evidence did not establish a clear representation or reliance sufficient to create an expectation of notice of, or an opportunity to speak at, any future meeting. The grant of permission was quashed because of the defective alternative-site investigation. There was no order as to costs.