Hawksworth Securities Plc, R (on the application of) v Ireef Queensgate Peterborough Propco S.A.R.L & Ors

A planning authority is generally required to determine the planning merits of the application before it. It need not compare the proposal with an alternative site unless legislation, development-plan policy or irrationality makes that comparison legally necessary. An alternative scheme may nevertheless be considered as a material consideration in the authority’s planning judgment.

There is no general duty to give reasons for granting planning permission. Since the removal of the statutory requirement for summary reasons, a common-law duty arises only exceptionally where fairness requires it. Where reasons are given, a planning committee need summarise the main reasons; it need not expose every step of its collective reasoning or identify which factual matters each member accepted.

The claimant promoted a mixed-use redevelopment at North Westgate in Peterborough. It challenged the Council’s decision to grant detailed planning permission for a competing Queensgate shopping-centre redevelopment, which included a cinema.

The claimant argued that approval of Queensgate would make Westgate commercially unviable and frustrate regeneration of the North Westgate Opportunity Area. It challenged the sequential determination of the applications, the treatment of the evidence and planning policies, an alleged burden-of-proof error, and the adequacy of the Council’s reasons.

The central issues were whether the Council had to compare the competing schemes or determine them together, whether it lawfully considered the Westgate scheme as a material consideration, and whether fairness required reasons for the grant of permission.

1. Permission and outcome. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted, but the claim was dismissed. The Council’s decision was lawful.
2. Alternative sites. Under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the application had to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The legislation imposed no express or implied general duty to compare alternative sites. Such a duty may arise from development-plan policy or, exceptionally, irrationality. The circumstances identified in Trusthouse Forte Hotels Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Mount Cook Land Ltd v Westminster City Council did not apply because the Queensgate scheme was policy-compliant and involved no planning harm. The Council was nevertheless entitled, in its planning judgment, to consider the Westgate scheme and its possible effect on regeneration.
3. Decision-making process. The Council was entitled to determine the applications sequentially, considering the earlier application first. The Committee had sufficient information about both schemes and was not required to conduct a comprehensive comparison. The weight given to the competing planning considerations was for the Council, not the court. The officer’s off-the-cuff reference to matters not being proved beyond doubt did not impose a criminal standard of proof and was not a legal misdirection.
4. Reasons. Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires reasons for conditions and refusals, but not generally for a grant of permission. A common-law duty to give reasons may arise exceptionally where fairness requires it. This was not such a case: the decision followed detailed officer reports and was neither inexplicable nor aberrant.
5. Even if the minutes were treated as volunteered reasons, they were adequate. A planning committee need only summarise the main reasons for its decision. It need not state every step in its reasoning, identify each member’s view, or explain in detail why an objector’s representations were rejected. The minutes, reports and meeting materials sufficiently explained the decision.