R Mark Wildie v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Mrs Jackie Avison (Interested Party)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Stephen Morris |
| Judgment Date | 13 September 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 2769 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 13 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2606/2013 |
[2013] EWHC 2769 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AT LEEDS
Leeds Combined Court Centre
The Court House
1 Oxford Row
Leeds LS1 3BG
Mr. Stephen Morris QC
Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Case No: CO/2606/2013
and
Zack Simons (instructed by Richard Buxton Environmental and Public Law, Solicitors) for the Claimant
Robert C Smith, counsel, for the Interested Party
The Defendant did not appear.
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Mr Stephen Morris QC
Mr Stephen Morris QC:
Introduction
By these judicial review proceedings, Mr Mark Wildie ("the Claimant") challenges a decision dated 28 November 2012 ("the Decision") of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council ("the Defendant") granting planning permission in respect of land off Haw Park Lane, Wintersett, Wakefield ("the Site"). The Site is in the Green Belt. By the Decision, the Defendant granted, subject to a number of conditions, planning permission for:
"Change of use of land from agricultural field to 20 pitch caravan and camping site, including residential use of land for managers mobile home, construction of a shed, improvements to vehicular access, provision of hard standing, dustbin/recycling area (part retrospective)" ….
That permission was granted to Mrs Jackie Avison of Goodwin Farms Limited, the owner of the land at the Site ("the Interested Party"). There were two aspects to her application for planning permission for the change of use of the Site: first, for use as a 20 pitch caravan and camping site and, secondly, for residential use of a manager's mobile home. The Defendant's planning officer recommended approval for the first aspect, but refusal in respect of the second aspect. However, by the Decision, the Defendant approved the application in full.
The Claimant challenges the Decision on two grounds: failure to give adequate reasons ("Ground 1") and failure properly to interpret or take account of Green Belt policy under the National Planning Policy Framework ("the NPPF") ("Ground 2").
In February this year, the Defendant indicated that it agreed to the making of a consent order for the quashing of the planning permission, on the basis of Ground 1 alone. The Interested Party however does not agree and disputes both Grounds.
Pursuant to an Order of King J in June 2013, this is the rolled up hearing of permission, and if granted, the substantive judicial review. Mr Zack Simons appeared for the Claimant, and Mr Robert C Smith appeared for the Interested Party. The Defendant did not appear.
The Legal and Policy Framework
Before turning to the factual background, I set out the relevant legal framework, comprising the legislative context, relevant legal principles and matters of planning policy.
Planning permission and reasons
(1) The duty to give reasons
The duty upon the Defendant to provide reasons in this case is set out in Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (2010 SI No 2184) ("the Order"), which provided, at the relevant time, as follows:
"(1) When the local planning authority gives notice of a decision or determination on an application for planning permission or for approval of reserved matters —
(a) where planning permission is granted, the notice shall-
(i) include a summary of their reasons for the grant of permission;
(ii) include a summary of the policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision to grant permission; and
(iii) where the permission is granted subject to conditions, state clearly and precisely their full reasons for each condition imposed, specifying all policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision;…"
By contrast, Article 31(1)(b) provided that, where planning permission is refused, then the notice should "state clearly and precisely their full reasons for the refusal". (These statutory provisions have since been amended twice).
The content of this statutory duty to provide reasons has been considered specifically in two cases: R (on the application of Ling (Bridlington) Ltd) v East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2006] EWHC 1604 (Admin) and subsequently by the Court of Appeal in R (on the application of Siraj) v Kirkless Metropolitan Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1286 (approving the judgment in Ling.) Following the hearing, the very recent judgment of Haddon-Cave J in R (on the application of Cherkley Campaign Limited) v Mole Valley District Council [2013] EWHC 2582 (Admin) has been drawn to my attention. It too refers to the duty to give summary reasons (in a case where a planning officer's recommendation was not followed).
The principles to be derived from these cases can be stated as follows:
(1) Only summary reasons are required for the grant of permission; this is in stark contrast to the requirement for full reasons where permission is refused: see Ling§47.
(2) Such summary reasons do not present a full account of the local planning authority's decision making process; rather they are a summary of the outcome of that process: Siraj, §14.
(3) Summary reasons are not to be equated with fuller reasons required in a Secretary of State's decision letter: Siraj, §14.
(4) When considering whether summary reasons are adequate, it is necessary to have regard to the surrounding circumstances of the case in question: Siraj§15.
(5) Where members of the local planning authority follow the recommendation of a planning officer to grant permission, then a relatively brief summary of reasons may well be sufficient; on the other hand, where the members grant permission contrary to the advice of a planning officer to refuse, a fuller summary of reasons may well be necessary or appropriate. Siraj§§15 and 16, and Ling§50.
(6) In the latter case, the reason why such a fuller summary may be necessary is as stated by Sullivan LJ in Siraj§15 as follows:
"a member of the public with an interest in challenging the lawfulness of planning permission will not necessarily be able to ascertain from the officer's report whether, in granting planning permission, the members correctly interpreted the local policies and took all relevant matters into account and disregarded irrelevant matters"
(7) Where members grant permission contrary to an officer's recommendation, the reasons should contain a summary explanation of the reasons for the grant of permission: Ling§48.
(8) Further, in such a case, the reasons should also contain a summary explanation of the reasons why members disagree with the reasoning in the officer's report which led to that recommendation. In my judgment, this is implicit in §§16 and 17 of Siraj, where Sullivan LJ considered that a relatively brief summary is sufficient, where there is no indication of disagreement with the reasoning in the officer's report. The implication is that where there is disagreement, the fuller summary reasons should include reasons for that disagreement. Further, in the Cherkley Campaign case, supra, Haddon-Cave J accepted (at §45) the proposition that, in such a case, there must be a rational and discernable basis for members to reject the officers' advice. Haddon-Cave J went on (at §185) to criticise the absence, in that case, of any explanation for the disagreement with the planning officer.
(9) Article 31 does not require a summary of the reasons for rejecting objections to the grant of permission: Ling, §48. "Objections" here, in my judgment, refer to third party objections made in the course of the planning application process, and not the planning officer's reasons for recommending refusal.
(10) A summary of reasons does not require a summary of reasons for reasons: Siraj§24 and Ling§49.
(2) Consequences of failure to give reasons
As in any case where a ground for judicial review is established, the remedy to be granted consequential upon a finding of inadequate reasons is a matter for the Court's discretion. Where there is a breach of the duty to give summary reasons for the grant of planning permission, three possible remedies arise for consideration: a quashing order in respect of the decision granting planning permission; an order directing the planning authorities to state its reasons; or a declaration that the planning authority has acted in breach of its statutory obligation to give a summary of reasons.
As a matter of general principle, the remedy for breach of an administrative law duty to give reasons should normally be the quashing of the decision, rather than an order for the provision of reasons. Fordham: Judicial Review Handbook (6th edn) §62.5 and De Smith's Judicial Review (7th edn) § 7-112. The policy underlying that normal rule is, first, that the rationale for the duty to give reasons is that it acts as incentive for careful and disciplined decision making and, secondly, it avoids the risk of 'after the event' reconstruction of reasons by the relevant decision maker. Further, as a result of the lapse of time between the original decision and the judicial review proceedings, it may be impracticable for such reasons to be given. It is only in limited circumstances that the absence or inadequacy of reasons can be remedied by the provision of further reasons.
I have been referred to three cases specifically: R v Westminster...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Mevagissey Parish Council v Cornwall Council Mevagissey Bay View LLP (Interested Party)
...Council [2012] EWCA Civ 457, R (Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley District Council [2013] EWHC 2582 (Admin) and R (Wildie) v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [2013] EWHC 2769 (Admin). Although there was considerable debate before me on the scope of reasons in this context, it is ......
-
R Royston Potter v Amber Valley Borough Council Mr & Mrs Michael Wood (Interested Parties)
...Council [2012] EWCA Civ 457, R (Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley District Council [2013] EWHC 2582 (Admin), and R (Wildie) v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [2013] EWHC 2769 45 For the purposes of this claim, if I might be forgiven, the summary of the principles derived from ......