On 15 February 2017, the Court of Appeal gave judgment in R (Oakley) v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2017] EWCA Civ 7. Oakley is the latest, and most significant, in a series of recent decisions in which the judges have incrementally re-introduced, through the common law, a duty to give reasons where planning permission is granted by a local authority. The judgment represents a novel extension of the common law duty to give reasons, given that local planning authorities have not been statutorily obliged to give reasons for a decision to grant planning permission.
The council’s planning committee had decided to grant permission for the construction of a 3,000-seat football ground for Cambridge City FC in the green belt, contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation. The committee had given no reasons for the decision either at the meeting or following it.
The claimant challenged the decision, arguing that the committee should have provided reasons for it. The High Court had dismissed the claim for judicial review on the basis that there was no general common law duty to give reasons for the grant of planning permission even contrary to officer advice and no common law duty arose in the circumstances.
The Court of Appeal held that a common law duty to give reasons did arise in the circumstances of the case. As such, there has been a breach and so the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court decision.
The Court of Appeal held that reasons were required because the proposed development was in conflict with the development plan and constituted inappropriate development in the green belt. While the duty might be discharged without the need for the planning committee to giving separate reasons, if the committee’s decision was in accordance with the recommendation of the officer, the position was different where members of a planning committee disagreed with the officer’s recommendation. In those circumstances, it was likely that the planning committee would be required to explain why they reached the decision they did, notwithstanding the officer’s advice.
This decision will have substantial implications for local authorities and their decision making processes, as well as for developers, and their advisors, in endeavouring to ensure that their planning consents are safe from challenge.
