Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 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.
In Threadneedle Property Investments Ltd v Southwark London Borough Council [2012] EWHC 855 (Admin); [2012] PLSCS 82 the claimant also sought to quash the decision of the LPA to grant planning permission, one of its grounds being that the LPA’s summary of reasons was inadequate. Its claim failed, other than to the extent that the court made a mandatory order requiring minor amendments to the decision notice. However, the following principles can be extracted from the jurisprudence considered by the court.
There is a contrast between the requirement on a LPA to give summary reasons when granting planning permission, and to give full reasons for refusing it. Furthermore, that requirement to give summary reasons when granting planning permission is not to be equated to the Secretary of State’s obligation to give reasons in a decision letter when allowing or dismissing an appeal, since the decision letter is intended to be a “stand-alone” document. Where the members of a planning committee have followed their officers’ recommendations, then a relatively brief summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission may be adequate. Where they have granted planning permission contrary to such a recommendation, a fuller summary of reasons may be necessary. The obligation is to give a summary of the reasons for the grant of planning permission, and not a summary of the reasons for rejecting an objector’s representations – even on a principal issue. It is not an inevitable consequence of a LPA’s failure to comply with its duty to provide summary reasons for granting planning permission that the planning permission should be quashed. So drastic a remedy is unnecessary when the planning permission is plainly lawful, or when the party challenging it has suffered no substantial prejudice.
John Martin is a freelance writer