SPVRG Limited v Pembrokeshire County Council

Where a local planning authority grants permission contrary to officer advice and the development plan, its reasons must address the principal important controversial issues. Short reasons may suffice, but they must explain the points of departure and the relevance of the main competing considerations. Economic benefits must not be assessed in isolation where the evidence identifies possible detriment to existing sites or wider sustainability and precedent concerns. A failure to address those matters may cause substantial prejudice and justify quashing the permission.

SPVRG Limited, a company formed by local residents, challenged Pembrokeshire County Council’s grant of planning permission for an extension to an existing caravan park and associated tourism facilities at Heritage Park, Pembrokeshire. The development conflicted with several policies in the adopted local development plan.

The council had approved the application contrary to officer recommendations and had not formulated written reasons before voting to endorse the planning committee’s resolution. Permission to proceed was granted on two grounds: inadequate reasons and an unreasonable approach to the proposed economic benefits. The issues were whether the council had adequately explained its departure from development-plan policies and officer advice, and whether it had considered the overall economic effects, including detriment to existing sites.

1. Outcome. The claim succeeded on both grounds. The council’s decision was quashed and the matter was remitted to it for redetermination.
2. A local planning authority will usually have to give reasons where it grants permission contrary to officer advice and in conflict with the development plan. Reasons may be brief, particularly where the officer’s report sets out the competing arguments, but they must enable the reader to understand how the principal important controversial issues were resolved.
3. The council’s resolution merely endorsed the planning committee’s earlier resolution. It did not adequately address the important issues of development in the countryside, sustainability and the precedent that comparable proposals might create. Nor did it explain whether, or to what extent, detrimental economic effects on existing sites were taken into account when weighing the claimed benefits. Those omissions caused substantial prejudice, particularly because the decision represented a major departure from countryside and sustainability policies likely to be relevant in future cases.
4. The court adopted a cautious approach to interpreting a corporate planning decision from individual members’ comments. The relevant evidence was the tenor of the meeting and the collective decision-making process.
5. The council’s focus on the proposed investment and employment benefits, without adequate attention to detriment affecting existing sites, was too narrow. The relevant economic consideration was the wider economic effect of the proposal, not merely the benefits identified by the applicant.
6. Although the defendant relied on section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, it was not highly likely that the outcome would have been substantially the same despite the defects. The decision was therefore quashed and remitted. The judgment did not indicate the merits of the decision to be made on remission.