Rural area — Application for permission to build — Application refused as out of keeping with rural character — Appeal by owner — Site visit by planning committee members — Legal opinion advising that appeal would succeed — High Court holding that council entitled to change decision provided they act rationally
The applicants were owners and occupiers of properties adjoining or close to Barracks Farm, Thornborough Road, Nash, Buckinghamshire (“the property”). P was the owner of that property and the council were the local planning authority for the area. By his first application P applied for permission to build two dwellings and garages. Permission was refused on the ground that the proposal would constitute development of a site which lay outside the built-up area of the village and the site and would be out of keeping with the rural character of the area. P appealed against that decision by way of a public inquiry.
Prior to that inquiry, the development control subcommittee of the council, having considered the findings of a group of members of the subcommittee, who had visited the site and a legal opinion apparently concerning P’s appeal, invited P to submit a new application for planning permission. They took the view that the earlier decision was wrong and that P’s appeal was bound to succeed. The second application was identical to the first but the council granted permission. The adjoining owners claimed that they had been informed that any development in the area would be limited to “infill”, whereas the proposed development could not be described as infill and would damage the rural character of the area.
The applicants sought leave to apply for judicial review on the basis that the second decision was irrational.
Held The application was refused.
1. Where there were two different decisions on identical applications the second decision was not necessarily irrational.
2. There was no reason in law why council committees should not change their minds. They were always entitled to do that and, provided they acted rationally and took into account all material considerations, they were not bound by previous decisions made in the same or similar context: see R v East Devon District Council, ex parte Church Commissioners for England unreported December 5 1995 QB.
3. The decision to invite a new application was taken as a result of the views of the site visitors who concluded that the site was within the built-up area of the village, while the decision that it was not was the basis for the refusal of the first application.
4. That decision was not prima facie irrational and there was no need to give reasons: see R v Bristol City Council, ex parte Bailey (1994) 27 HLR 307. There were patently new factors that came into the decision-making process, namely the site visit and the legal advice concerning the prospects of the appeal which could amount to a sufficient change of circumstances to justify a different decision. In all the circumstances the council were entitled to act as they did.
Rabinder Singh (instructed by Kingsford Stacey) appeared for the applicants; Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the solicitor to Aylesbury Vale District Council) appeared for the planning authority; Suzanne Ornsby (instructed by Lorimers, of Buckingham) appeared for the property owner.
