When a third party seeks to challenge the grant of planning permission on the ground of procedural irregularity, it must also show at the same time that it has thereby suffered actual prejudice. The governing principle is that a breach of procedure, whether called a failure of natural justice or an essential administrative fault, cannot provide a remedy in the courts unless, behind it, something of substance has been lost by the failure. This was recently illustrated by the decision in R (on the application of Kerr) v
In that case, the claimant sought judicial review of a decision of the local planning authority (LPA) to grant planning permission for the extension of a Bangladeshi community centre opposite his home. He contended that the decision had been taken following a significant procedural irregularity that adversely affected his interests. The LPA argued that, although there had been procedural errors, the claimant had failed to show that he had been prejudiced by them.
The claimant’s main grounds of challenge were:
(i) the committee report contained an incomplete summary of his objections to the proposal;
(ii) he had wrongly been denied the opportunity to address the planning committee to which he was entitled; and
(iii) contrary to the terms of the planning committee’s scheme for public speaking, a supporter of the proposal had been allowed to speak.
He also maintained that, in consequence, the planning committee had not taken into account his specific objections based on consistent failure to adhere to conditions attached to earlier planning permissions.
The court allowed the claim and quashed the planning permission. It concluded that the claimant had been seriously prejudiced in being prevented from addressing the planning committee. He had been deprived of an opportunity of raising issues that had not been fully placed before the planning committee by its officers. He had also been unable to respond to the issues raised by the supporter of the planning application.
The judge stressed the value of a brief oral summary of cogent objections immediately before a planning committee deliberates on the merits of a planning application.
John Martin is a freelance writer
