Introduction

The case of DLA Delivery Ltd v. Baroness Cumberlege of Newick & Anor ([2018] EWCA Civ 1305) was adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on June 8, 2018. This landmark decision addresses the crucial issue of consistency in planning decisions made by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The appellant, DLA Delivery Ltd., contested the refusal of planning permission for a housing development project on Mitchelswood Farm, Newick, challenging the Secretary of State's reliance on the decision in a prior appeal—Ringmer—where Policy CT1 was deemed up-to-date.

The central question revolved around whether the Secretary of State erred in failing to consider his own previous decision during the adjudication of DLA Delivery's appeal, thereby rendering his decision unlawful. The respondents, Baroness Cumberlege and her husband, members of the Newick Village Society, opposed the development, citing its potential conflicts with local planning policies and environmental considerations.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the initial ruling that the Secretary of State had unlawfully failed to consider his prior decision in the Ringmer appeal. The Court emphasized the necessity for administrative bodies to maintain consistency in decision-making, particularly when similar cases are adjudicated in close temporal proximity and involve comparable policy considerations.

The Court identified three primary issues:

• Whether the judge applied the correct legal test in assessing the lawfulness of the Secretary of State's decision.
• Whether the Secretary of State erred in failing to consider his decision in the Ringmer appeal.
• Whether the Secretary of State misapplied regulation 68(3) of the Habitats Regulations 2010.

The judgment concluded that the Secretary of State's inconsiderate approach towards his prior decision led to inconsistent outcomes, undermining public confidence and violating legal obligations. Consequently, the Court ordered the decision to be quashed, emphasizing the imperatives of consistency and transparency in administrative processes.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced pivotal cases to establish the legal framework governing material considerations in administrative decisions:

• In re Findlay [1985]: Established that authorities must consider material factors explicitly or implicitly required by statute.
• CREEDNZ Inc. v Governor-General [1981]: Introduced the principle that some matters are "so obviously material" that their omission would render a decision unlawful.
• Derbyshire Dales District Council v Secretary of State [2010]: Confirmed the application of the Wednesbury unreasonableness test in planning decisions.
• North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State [1993]: Affirmed that previous decisions can be material considerations ensuring consistency.
• Linnaean Society v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport [2013]: Highlighted the necessity for decision-makers to be aware of and consider relevant prior decisions.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's stance on enforcing consistency and adherence to legal obligations in administrative decisions, particularly within the planning law context.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning hinged on the principle that administrative authorities, like the Secretary of State, bear an obligation to ensure consistency across their decisions. This obligation is vital for maintaining public trust and ensuring fairness. The Court examined whether the Secretary of State had, as a reasonable decision-maker, been aware of the Ringmer decision and whether its considerations were inherently material to the Newick appeal.

The Court determined that the circumstances of the two appeals—both concerning similar housing developments outside designated planning boundaries and recovered by the Secretary of State for determination—necessitated a consistent approach. The temporal proximity of the decisions and the overlapping policy considerations (Policy CT1) further cemented the duty of consistency. The Secretary of State's failure to recognize and reconcile the differing outcomes of the Ringmer and Newick cases constituted an error of law.

Moreover, the misapplication of regulation 68(3) of the Habitats Regulations 2010 was identified as a separate but compounding error. The failure to accurately assess the implications of the development on the Ashdown Forest SPA and SAC, particularly concerning the 7km "zone of influence," demonstrated a breach of the "precautionary principle" mandated by national and European regulations.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future planning decisions and administrative law:

• Strengthening Consistency: Administrative bodies must rigorously ensure consistency across similar decisions, especially when policies and strategic plans guide development applications.
• Enhancing Transparency: Decision-makers are obliged to provide clear explanations when deviating from established policies or prior decisions, fostering greater transparency.
• Legal Compliance: Strict adherence to national and European regulations, such as the Habitats Regulations, is paramount, with severe repercussions for non-compliance.
• Guidance for Planning Authorities: This case serves as a benchmark for planning authorities to develop robust internal protocols to review and consider prior decisions proactively.

Overall, the judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law within administrative processes, ensuring that decision-makers act within their legal bounds and maintain procedural integrity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Material Considerations

Material considerations are factors that a decision-maker must take into account when making an administrative decision. In planning law, these include local development plans, national policies, and any relevant previous decisions to ensure consistent application of policies.

Wednesbury Unreasonableness

The Wednesbury principle refers to a standard of unreasonableness in judicial review. A decision is deemed Wednesbury unreasonable if it is so irrational that no reasonable authority could have made it, ensuring that administrative bodies do not act arbitrarily.

Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle is a strategy to cope with possible risks where scientific understanding is yet incomplete. In planning, it mandates that authorities take preventive action in the face of uncertainty, particularly concerning environmental conservation.

Habitats Regulations 2010

These regulations implement the European Union’s Habitats Directive in the UK, aiming to protect endangered species and habitats. They require thorough assessments of potential impacts of developments on protected areas before granting planning permissions.

Conclusion

The DLA Delivery Ltd v. Baroness Cumberlege case underscores the imperative for administrative consistency and adherence to legal obligations in planning decisions. By holding the Secretary of State accountable for failing to consider a prior relevant decision, the Court reinforced the standards of fairness, transparency, and rationality expected in public decision-making. This judgment serves as a critical reminder to planning authorities of their duties to maintain consistency across similar cases, thereby ensuring public confidence in the planning system and upholding the rule of law.