header-logo header-logo

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

Tell it like it is

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll