Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 – which came into force on 1 October 2010 – obliges a local planning authority (LPA), on determining a planning application, to provide certain information in its written decision notice. Where planning permission is granted, it must include a summary of: (i) its reasons for the grant; and (ii) the development plan policies and proposals relevant to its decision. (If permission is granted subject to conditions, it must also state clearly and precisely the full reasons for each condition, specifying the relevant development plan polices and proposals.) Where planning permission is refused, it must state clearly and precisely its full reasons, again specifying the relevant development plan policies and proposals.
The court in R (on the application of Ling (Bridlington) Ltd) v East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2006] EWHC 1604 (Admin); [2007] JPL 396 made the following observations on the predecessor provision to article 31: (a) there is a marked difference in the language of the statutory requirement relating to reasons for the grant of planning permission compared to that relating to reasons for the refusal of planning permission; (b) the statutory language requires a summary of the reasons for granting planning permission; not a summary of the reasons for rejecting objections to the grant of planning permission; (c) a summary of reasons does not require a summary of reasons for reasons; and (d) where the planning committee followed the recommendation in the officer’s report in granting planning permission, a short summary of reasons may be adequate.
In R (on the application of Telford Trustee No 1 Ltd) v Telford and Wrekin Council [2011] EWCA 896; [2011] PLSCS 200, the claimant sought to quash the decision of the LPA to grant planning permission for a new food store principally on the ground that the LPA’s summary of reasons was inadequate. The Court of Appeal, dealing with the substantive claim at first instance, dismissed it relying on the principles referred to above. Richards LJ stated as follows: “This is a case where the members of the planning committee followed the recommendation in the officers’ report and adopted the statement of reasons set out in that report. There is nothing to suggest that they departed in any way from the reasoning in that report… In my judgment, the relatively brief summary actually given was indeed adequate to comply with the statutory requirement”.
John Martin is a freelance writer
