Cherkley Campaign Ltd, R (on the application of) v Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd

In determining a planning application, a local planning authority must correctly construe and apply the development plan and relevant national policy. In the context of golf-course development, a requirement to demonstrate a “need” means a public or community necessity, not merely private demand, commercial viability or desirability. Where protected landscapes are affected, the authority must address the applicable exceptional-circumstances, public-interest, conservation and alternative-location considerations. Green Belt policy requires separate consideration of inappropriate development, very special circumstances, and whether those circumstances clearly outweigh the harm. Failure to apply these tests, or to give intelligible reasons when departing from officers’ recommendations, renders the decision unlawful.

Cherkley Campaign Limited sought judicial review of Mole Valley District Council’s decision to grant Longshot Cherkley Court Limited planning permission for an exclusive golf course, hotel, spa and associated facilities at Cherkley Court and the Cherkley Estate.

The site included Green Belt land, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, an Area of Great Landscape Value and other environmental designations. The claimant challenged the decision on grounds including failure to demonstrate need, failure to address protected-landscape policies, Green Belt error, inadequate reasons, water resources and the Glass House Cottages.

Permission was granted on selected grounds. The central issues were whether the Council had properly interpreted and applied the relevant planning policies and whether its reasons sufficiently explained its departure from the planning officers’ recommendation.

1. Outcome. The claim succeeded on the need, protected-landscape and Green Belt grounds. The planning permission was quashed. The water-resources and Glass House Cottages grounds failed.
2. Need. The supporting text to saved Policy REC12 formed part of the policy matrix, or at least constituted a material consideration. “Need” required demonstration of a public or community necessity for further golf facilities in the relevant locality. Private demand, exclusivity, membership interest and commercial viability did not establish that need. The Council had therefore applied the wrong legal test and its conclusion was irrational on the evidence.
3. Location and landscape. The requirement that golf-course proposals be “directed away” from protected landscapes was mandatory and material. The development was a major development visually encroaching on an AONB, so paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework was engaged. The Council failed to consider exceptional circumstances, the national interest, the possibility of development elsewhere, and the requirement to conserve and enhance the existing landscape.
4. Green Belt. The authority had to ask whether the proposal was inappropriate development, whether very special circumstances existed, and whether those circumstances clearly outweighed Green Belt and other harm. It also had to give substantial weight to Green Belt harm. The Council did not perform that sequential analysis and did not establish that very special circumstances existed.
5. Reasons and other grounds. The reasons were inadequate because they did not explain the departure from the officers’ advice or address the decisive policy tests. The Council had, however, sufficient evidence to conclude that adequate water resources were available, and the Glass House Cottages issue did not independently vitiate the decision.

First-instance judicial review decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.