Steer, R (On the Application Of) v Shepway District Council

A planning committee must address the material planning policies applicable to the proposal and provide intelligible reasons when granting permission contrary to an officer’s recommendation, particularly where the proposal is controversial and affects a protected landscape. The reasons need not address every consideration, but must explain the conclusions reached on the principal controversial issues and disclose how material questions of law and fact were resolved. Where the recorded reasons leave substantial doubt about whether the committee understood or rationally addressed those issues, the permission may be quashed. The court will not review the planning merits or substitute its own planning judgment.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Council’s decision to grant permission for a holiday park in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Permission had been granted despite an officer’s recommendation for refusal and substantial objections. The permitted development included holiday lodges, buildings, a fishing lake and recreational facilities on agricultural land.

The permitted grounds concerned whether the committee had considered paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework, whether its conclusion that the development would not harm the AONB was irrational, and whether its reasons were adequate. The central issue was whether the minutes sufficiently explained the committee’s decision and its departure from the officer’s assessment.

1. Grounds 1 and 2. The committee had sufficient material before it to decide whether paragraph 116 of the NPPF applied. Whether the proposal was a “major development” was a matter of planning judgment and could reasonably have been decided either way. The claimant had not proved that the committee failed to consider paragraph 116. Nor had he established that the committee’s assessment of harm to the AONB was irrational. The court could not substitute its planning judgment for that of the committee.
2. Duty to give reasons. A common-law duty to give reasons arose because the committee departed from the officer’s recommendation and the application concerned a controversial development in a protected AONB. The reasons had to be intelligible and adequate, enabling the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the principal controversial issues.
3. The minutes were effectively the sole reasons for the decision because the committee had not adopted the officer’s reasoning. They did not explain the committee’s approach to paragraph 116 of the NPPF or its assessment of harm to the AONB, including the statutory duty under section 85(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. They therefore left substantial doubt whether the committee had understood the relevant issues or reached a rational conclusion on relevant grounds.
4. The inadequate reasons substantially prejudiced the claimant because they prevented him from establishing whether the committee had erred in law or acted irrationally. The defect went to the heart of the justification for permission. It was not highly likely that the outcome would have been substantially the same under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The permission was quashed. The claimant succeeded, subject to a costs reduction to 65% of the £35,000 costs limit.

First-instance judicial review. The planning permission granted by Shepway District Council was quashed.