Introduction

The case of Cooper, R (on the application of) v. Ashford Borough Council & Anor ([2016] PTSR 1455) was adjudicated in the England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) on June 24, 2016. The primary litigant, Mr. Raymond Cooper, challenged the Ashford Borough Council's decision to grant planning permission for the establishment of four gypsy pitches and associated developments at Milee, Nickley Wood Road, near Shadoxhurst in Kent. The core issues revolved around alleged procedural flaws in the council's decision-making process, particularly concerning the adherence to established planning policies and the consideration of material factors.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court examined Mr. Cooper's claims that Ashford Borough Council improperly granted planning permission by failing to fully consider relevant parts of the development plan and by not adequately addressing potential precedents that such a decision might set. The court found in favor of Mr. Cooper, determining that the council had indeed not complied with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This non-compliance arose from the council's inadequate application of key local planning policies, particularly those protecting ancient woodlands and managing the provision of gypsy and traveller sites. Consequently, the court quashed the council's decision to grant planning permission.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several pivotal cases that shaped the court's understanding of administrative law and planning permissions. Notably:

• City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] 1 WLR 1447 - Emphasizing the necessity of aligning planning decisions with development plans unless material considerations dictate otherwise.
• Tiviot Way Investments Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] - Highlighting the need for properly reasoned findings in planning decisions.
• In re Findlay [1985] AC 318 - Establishing that considerations deemed "material" are relevant if they could influence the decision outcome.
• R (Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley District Council [2014] EWCA Civ 567 - Clarifying that supporting texts in development plans are relevant for policy interpretation but not part of the policy itself.

These precedents underscored the necessity for local planning authorities to meticulously adhere to development plans and thoroughly evaluate material considerations without overstepping their discretionary bounds.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning was anchored in the statutory requirement that planning permissions must be granted in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). The High Court found that Ashford Borough Council failed to:

• Properly apply key policies from the Ashford Borough Local Plan and the Local Development Framework Core Strategy, specifically Policies GP12, EN32, CS1, and CS14.
• Effectively balance the identified need for gypsy and traveller sites against the environmental impact on ancient woodlands and local wildlife.
• Provide adequately reasoned findings that demonstrate compliance with the development plan as a whole.

Furthermore, the council did not sufficiently address the potential precedent-setting nature of granting such planning permissions, which could cumulatively harm protected natural habitats. The court emphasized that failing to consider these material factors rendered the council's decision unlawful.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the imperative for local planning authorities to rigorously adhere to development plans and meticulously consider all material factors in their decision-making processes. It serves as a critical reminder that:

• A failure to comply with statutory planning procedures can result in the nullification of planning permissions.
• Authorities must provide comprehensive and reasoned justifications when deviating from established planning policies.
• Considerations regarding the cumulative environmental impact and the setting of precedents must be thoroughly evaluated to prevent long-term detrimental effects.

Future planning applications will likely see heightened scrutiny to ensure that councils not only follow development plans but also transparently address all material considerations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

This section mandates that local planning authorities must make decisions on planning applications in line with the designated development plan. Exceptions are only permissible if there are "material considerations" that justify deviating from the plan.

Material Considerations

These are factors deemed sufficiently important that they influence the decision-making process. Examples include environmental impact, community needs, and compliance with local policies.

Development Plan

A comprehensive strategy that outlines the local authority's planning policies and objectives. It serves as a blueprint for making consistent and informed planning decisions.

Judicial Review

A legal process through which individuals can challenge the legality of decisions made by public bodies. It does not assess the merits of the decision but focuses on whether the correct procedures and laws were followed.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision in Cooper v Ashford Borough Council underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to development plans by local authorities when granting planning permissions. By identifying and rectifying procedural flaws in the council's decision-making process, the judgment ensures that environmental protections and policy compliance remain paramount. This case serves as a precedent for future judicial reviews, highlighting the judiciary's role in enforcing lawful and reasoned planning decisions. For local councils, it is a potent reminder to meticulously evaluate all relevant policies and material considerations to uphold the integrity of the planning system and protect community and environmental interests.