Vieira, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Camden & Anor

A public authority may create a legitimate expectation through a clear policy, promise or regular practice. It must ordinarily follow that procedure unless departure is objectively justified by a proportionate response to a legitimate public interest. Published planning procedures created legitimate expectations that objectors would be notified of a significant revision, given an opportunity to comment on the officer’s report, and that the designated members’ panel would be consulted on the route by which the application should be determined. A procedural breach warrants quashing where the authority cannot show that the outcome would inevitably have been the same.

The claimants, neighbouring owners, sought judicial review of Camden’s grant of retrospective planning permission for a conservatory, balcony, steps and trellis at an adjoining flat. They relied on published planning policies and procedures concerning consultation on revised plans, publication of officers’ reports, and referral to a Members’ Briefing Panel.

The amended drawing and officer’s report were not published, and the application was determined by officers without the expected panel review. The central issues were whether these procedures created legitimate expectations, whether any departure was justified, whether the claimants suffered prejudice, and whether relief should nevertheless be refused.

1. Legitimate expectation. A legitimate expectation may arise from an express or implied representation, or from a regular practice. The representation must be clear, unambiguous and free of relevant qualification. The claimants fell within the class protected by Camden’s published planning procedures.
2. Revised drawing. The reduction in the trellis was a significant revision in the circumstances because it was likely to affect the decision whether the application should proceed under delegated powers. The claimants were entitled to receive drawing 07A and to comment on it. A prior indication of the proposed amendment did not constitute consultation on the completed revision.
3. Officer’s report. Camden’s published procedures represented that officers’ reports considered at Members’ Briefings would be available online in advance, enabling interested persons to comment. That expectation remained applicable when an officer temporarily performed the panel’s role.
4. Members’ Briefing Panel. The procedures created an expectation that the panel would advise whether the application should be determined under delegated powers or referred to the Development Control Committee. The recent local election did not justify dispensing with that safeguard. The application should have been postponed if the panel could not yet be constituted.
5. Prejudice and relief. The claimants were prejudiced because they could not comment on the amended plan or report and lost the opportunity for members to recommend referral to committee. A quashing order may be refused only where the outcome would inevitably have been the same; probability is insufficient. The planning permission was therefore quashed and the application ordered to be reconsidered according to law.