Introduction

The case of Davison, R (on the application of) v. Elmbridge Borough Council ([2019] EWHC 1409 (Admin)) addresses the critical issue of consistency in local authority planning decisions. The Claimant, Mr. Davison, challenges the Elmbridge Borough Council's decision to grant planning permission for the construction of a new football and athletic stadium within the metropolitan Green Belt in Walton on Thames, Surrey. This decision marks the second litigation round for the project, following the quashing of an earlier planning permission by Mr. Justice Supperstone in January 2017.

The central issue revolves around whether the Council maintained consistency in its decision-making process, particularly concerning the impact of the development on the openness of the Green Belt— a protected area intended to prevent urban sprawl and preserve the countryside. The Claimant alleges that the Council departed from its previous stance without adequate justification, thereby violating the principle of consistency in administrative decision-making.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Supperstone, found in favor of Mr. Davison, quashing the Council's decision to grant the second planning permission (Permission 2) dated 26 April 2017. The judgment emphasized that the Council failed to adequately address the inconsistency between its initial and subsequent assessments of the development's impact on Green Belt openness. While the Council contended that Permission 1 had been quashed and therefore should not influence Permission 2, the Court held that the underlying reasoning from Permission 1 remained relevant. The lack of a satisfactory explanation for the altered stance on Green Belt openness undermined public confidence and breached the principle of consistency, leading to the decision being quashed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases that shape the legal framework for consistency in planning decisions:

• North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Clover (1993): Established that previous decisions are material considerations to ensure consistency.
• Dunster Properties Ltd v First Secretary of State & Anr (2007): Highlighted the duty to provide reasons when deviating from prior decisions to maintain sound decision-making and public confidence.
• R(Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2012): Emphasized the importance of avoiding arbitrariness in administrative decisions.
• Arun District Council v Secretary of State (2013): Addressed the complexities of considering quashed decisions in subsequent decision-making processes.
• Fox Strategic Land and Property Ltd v Secretary of State (2012) and Vallis v Secretary of State (2012): Discussed the necessity of addressing inconsistencies when previous decisions are under legal challenge.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's stance that consistency is not merely a procedural nicety but a substantive legal requirement to uphold fairness, predictability, and public trust in planning authorities.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning centered on the principle that local authorities must exhibit consistency in their decision-making to foster public confidence and uphold the integrity of the planning system. Key points include:

• Material Consideration of Previous Decisions: Even if a previous decision (Permission 1) is quashed, the underlying reasoning, especially on critical issues like Green Belt openness, remains a material consideration in subsequent decisions (Permission 2).
• Duty to Provide Reasons: When deviating from prior judgments, authorities must provide clear and cogent reasons to explain the consistency or change in their stance.
• Fact-Specific Assessment: Whether a quashed decision should influence a new decision depends on the specific circumstances, including whether the previous judgment remains relevant and how significant the inconsistency is.
• Public Confidence and Legal Integrity: Upholding consistent decision-making processes is essential for maintaining public trust and ensuring that administrative actions are rational and non-arbitrary.

In this case, the Court found that the Council did not adequately address the inconsistency between Permission 1 and Permission 2 regarding the impact on Green Belt openness. The lack of explanation left the change in position unexplained, thereby breaching the principle of consistency.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the necessity for local planning authorities to maintain consistency in their decisions, especially when similar applications are reconsidered. Potential impacts include:

• Enhanced Scrutiny: Authorities will be more diligent in explaining any deviations from previous decisions to avoid legal challenges.
• Policy Interpretation: Clear adherence to and interpretation of national policies, such as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), will be paramount in decision-making processes.
• Precedent for Future Cases: The case sets a precedent that even if a previous decision is quashed, the reasoning behind it can still influence future decisions, ensuring a more robust and transparent planning system.
• Public Trust: By mandating consistency and clear reasoning, the judgment aims to bolster public confidence in local authorities' planning decisions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Green Belt: A designated area around urban spaces where development is restricted to preserve the openness and prevent urban sprawl.
• NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework): A key document in the UK that sets out the government's planning policies for England and how they should be applied.
• Judicial Review: A legal process where courts review the actions of public bodies to ensure they are lawful, rational, and procedurally fair.
• Material Consideration: Factors that a decision-maker must take into account when making a planning decision. These include policies, past decisions, and other relevant information.
• Consistency Principle: The requirement that similar cases should be treated similarly, ensuring fairness and predictability in administrative decisions.

Understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping the nuances of the judgment and its implications for future planning decisions.

Conclusion

The Davison v Elmbridge Borough Council judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring consistency and rationality in local authority planning decisions. By mandating that councils must provide clear explanations for any deviations from prior judgments, the Court reinforces the necessity for transparency and accountability in administrative processes. This case serves as a pivotal reference point for future litigation concerning planning permissions, emphasizing that even in the face of quashed decisions, the underlying reasoning retains its significance. Consequently, local authorities are impelled to uphold stringent standards of consistency, thereby fostering public trust and enhancing the integrity of the planning system.