header-logo header-logo

Tell it like it is

07 April 2017 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7741 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public
printer mail-detail
nlj_7741_dobson

There are reasons for giving reasons in planning decisions, says Nicholas Dobson

  • While there is no general obligation to give reasons for granting planning permission, such reasons are likely to be necessary if the committee changes its mind, departs from officer recommendations or gives permission for development in the Green Belt or in breach of the development plan.

“Never”, advised former Lord Chief Justice Lord Mansfield, “give your reasons; for your judgment will probably be right, but your reasons will certainly be wrong”. Public law has of course moved on a touch since Lord Mansfield’s 18th century advice to a newly appointed colonial governor. But to what extent does a planning authority have to give reasons for granting planning consent—in particular for a development in the Green Belt against officer advice?

That was the issue in a decision of the Court of Appeal on 15 February 2017: Oakley v South Cambridgeshire DC & another [2017] EWCA Civ 71. In the circumstances this found a common law duty requiring the council

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll