Grantchester Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Greater Cambridge Partnership

A substantive legitimate expectation requires a clear, unambiguous and sufficiently focused commitment. The assessment is context-sensitive. An alleged oral assurance made informally by one councillor will rarely bind a joint local-authority body where that councillor lacks authority to determine the matter.

Where enforcement of the expectation would affect third-party interests or constrain a public authority’s discretion, particular clarity is required. A claimant must also show that reliance on the assurance was reasonable and legitimate. The Tameside duty of inquiry is context-specific and generally reviewable only on conventional public-law grounds.

Grantchester Parish Council challenged the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s decision of 4 January 2024 to progress the Grantchester section of the Haslingfield Greenway through the village.

The Council alleged that Councillor Bridget Smith had promised at an informal meeting on 17 October 2022 that the route would not proceed through Grantchester if residents opposed it. It contended that the promise created a substantive legitimate expectation, or at least constituted a material consideration. It also alleged a failure to investigate whether the promise had been made, contrary to the Tameside duty of inquiry.

The court heard oral evidence from the principal participants because the alleged promise was a disputed issue of primary fact.

1. The claim was dismissed. No binding legitimate expectation arose. The Council bore the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, a promise that was clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification.
2. The court found that no promise of the necessary clarity had been made. The evidence and subsequent documents showed, at most, an imprecise assurance that village views would be taken seriously.
3. Even if a clear statement had been made, reliance on it would not have been reasonable. The Greater Cambridge Partnership was a joint committee of three local authorities, and an individual councillor could not ordinarily bind it.
4. The context required heightened clarity because the expectation concerned the substantive route of a public project and would directly affect third-party interests.
5. The alleged commitment could not operate as a material consideration because no binding commitment had been given.
6. The Tameside duty is context-specific. It was rational for the Partnership to regard its inquiries as sufficient after asking the relevant participants present at the meeting. Ground Two therefore failed.

The claim was dismissed.