For a claim relying on the principle of legitimate expectation to be successfully advanced, a public authority must have represented (either by way of an express promise or implicitly by way of past practice) that it will conduct itself in a particular way. It may then be argued that the representation gives rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the person to whom it was made that the public authority will so act, and the public authority may have to give effect to that expectation. Legitimate expectations are categorised as substantive or procedural. In the case of the former, it may be the provision of a concrete benefit. In the case of the latter, it may be the opportunity to be consulted or to make representations. There is little scope in planning law for substantive legitimate expectation, but examples of procedural legitimate expectation being upheld do occur.
In R (on the application of Viera) v Camden London Borough Council [2012] EWHC 287 (Admin); [2012] PLSCS 42 the claimants sought judicial review of the grant by the local planning authority (LPA) of retrospective planning permission for a conservatory at the rear of an adjoining property. The LPA had earlier adopted a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) under section 18 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. In the SCI, the LPA set out how it intended to involve local communities in the consideration of planning applications.
The claimants had initially been consulted by the LPA, and had objected on grounds of loss of privacy. Thereafter, however, the adjoining owner submitted revised proposals that the claimants were never shown, nor given an opportunity to comment on. Those proposals were not put on the LPA’s website, nor was an officer’s report. Finally, the LPA’s officers granted planning permission. The claimants contended that they had a legitimate expectation that they would be consulted on the revised proposals, as indicated in the SCI, and that the proposals and an officer’s report would appear on the LPA’s website.
The court allowed the claim, and quashed the grant of planning permission, holding that the LPA had breached the claimants’ legitimate expectation to be notified and consulted on the revision to the planning application. In particular, the SCI required re-consultation following the submission of a revision to the planning application.
John Martin is a freelance writer
