- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dover District Council v CPRE Kent
Factual and Procedural Background
The case concerns a controversial planning application for large-scale residential and tourism development on two sites west of The City known as “Western Heights” and “Farthingloe.” Part of the land lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and includes a scheduled monument. The second appellant, “Company A,” applied to the local planning authority, “The Council,” for permission to build 521 dwellings (later recommended for reduction to 365), a retirement village, a hotel, conference centre and heritage improvements. The proposal generated strong public support for anticipated economic benefits and equally strong objection for its environmental impact.
The Council’s professional officers produced a 135-page report recommending conditional approval subject to a reduction in housing numbers and other safeguards. At a meeting on 13 June 2013 the elected Planning Committee rejected the key officer modifications and resolved to grant permission for the full 521 dwellings. No written statement of the Committee’s reasons accompanied the final decision notice issued on 1 April 2015.
“The Respondent,” a local environmental charity, sought judicial review alleging (among other grounds) failure to provide legally adequate reasons. The High Court (Judge [Last Name]) dismissed the claim, but the Court of Appeal allowed it and quashed the permission. The Council and Company A appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a local planning authority that grants permission contrary to its professional advice owes a legal duty to give reasons for its decision, and if so the legal sources (statute, European law or common law) of that duty.
- The required standard or content of any such reasons.
- The appropriate judicial remedy where the duty to give reasons, particularly under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, is breached.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The EIA Regulations’ failure-to-give-reasons breach can be cured by supplying reasons retrospectively; a declaratory order, not quashing, is sufficient (relying on Richardson).
- At common law, a duty to give reasons arises only “exceptionally.” The 2013 removal of the statutory requirement to state reasons for grants of permission shows Parliament did not intend a general obligation.
- The Planning Committee’s minutes, read with the officers’ report, already reveal adequate reasoning: members preferred the full scheme because reduced housing numbers risked viability and economic benefits.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Committee’s failure to publish clear reasons breached regulation 24 of the EIA Regulations and common-law principles of fairness and transparency, especially given the scheme’s scale, AONB impact, and departure from officer advice.
- Minutes did not explain how members evaluated severe landscape harm, reconciled competing viability evidence or secured promised benefits (e.g., the hotel); therefore the public and the court cannot understand “why” permission was granted.
- Only quashing can remedy the defect; retrospective reasoning three years later would undermine effective public participation guaranteed by the Aarhus Convention and EU law.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 153 | Reasons safeguard: decisions must be taken on relevant and rational grounds visible to the public. | Cited to emphasise the constitutional value of published reasons and to compare Secretary-of-State duties with local authority duties. |
| South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953 | Test of adequacy: reasons must be intelligible, deal with principal controversial issues and leave no substantial doubt. | Adopted as the benchmark for assessing whether the Committee’s reasoning met the required standard. |
| Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State (1993) 66 P & CR 263 | Decision must not leave “genuine doubt” as to what was decided and why. | Re-affirmed when defining the core question in a reasons challenge. |
| Westminster CC v Great Portland Estates plc [1985] AC 661 | Short reasons may suffice if they properly identify the basis of the decision. | Used to illustrate that brevity is acceptable, but only where substance is clear. |
| R (Siraj) v Kirklees MBC [2010] EWCA Civ 1286 | “Summary reasons” requirement under earlier domestic regulations contrasted with fuller Porter standard. | Distinguished; Supreme Court held EIA duty still requires main reasons meeting Porter content. |
| R (Cherkley Campaign Ltd) v Mole Valley DC [2014] EWCA Civ 567 | Counsel’s concession that EIA “main reasons” duty not higher than domestic “summary reasons.” | Supreme Court declined the analogy and held Porter applies. |
| R (Richardson) v North Yorkshire CC [2004] 1 WLR 1920 | Suggested declaration plus later reasons could satisfy EIA breach. | Supreme Court disagreed; held quashing appropriate where reasons missing at decision date. |
| R (Champion) v North Norfolk DC [2015] UKSC 52 | Court may refuse relief if no substantial prejudice despite procedural breach. | Cited in discussing discretion but court found substantial prejudice present here. |
| Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44 | Public participation and Aarhus principles inform national law. | Supported view that transparency duties extend to planning committees. |
| Oakley v South Cambridgeshire DC [2017] EWCA Civ 71 | Common-law duty to give reasons where major departure from policy and officer advice. | Endorsed; Supreme Court said current case equally required reasons. |
| R v Secretary of State ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 | Fairness may require reasons so that judicial review is effective. | Analogy used to justify a common-law reasons duty in planning context. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first examined statutory and European sources. While the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 imposes no express duty to give reasons for a grant, regulation 24 of the EIA Regulations (implementing the EU Directive and Aarhus Convention) does require disclosure of “the main reasons and considerations” when determining EIA development.
Turning to common law, the Court held that fairness and the principle of transparency can oblige planning authorities to publish reasons, especially where:
- Permission is granted for a major development with substantial public controversy.
- The decision departs from the development plan or other high-level policy (here, AONB protection under the National Planning Policy Framework).
- Elected members reject detailed professional advice.
Applying Porter, the Court assessed whether the material available left “substantial doubt” about what was decided and why. The Committee minutes only recorded a general view that limiting housing numbers “could jeopardise viability,” without explaining:
- Why members preferred the applicant’s consultants over the Council’s own viability experts.
- How purported screening or landscaping would mitigate acknowledged severe AONB harm.
- Why no legal mechanism (condition/obligation) was imposed to secure a hotel considered central to the economic justification.
This omission breached the EIA Regulations and, given the circumstances, the common-law duty to give reasons. The Court rejected the suggestion that post-decision reasoning would suffice, stating that reasons are “an intrinsic part of the procedure, essential to effective public participation.”
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s order quashing the planning permission.
Implications: Local planning authorities must provide intelligible, adequate reasons when granting permission for major, controversial or policy-sensitive projects—especially where the Environmental Impact Assessment regime applies or members depart from officer advice. Failure to do so is likely to result in the permission being quashed; retrospective explanations will rarely cure the defect. The judgment reinforces transparency obligations and aligns domestic common law with EU and Aarhus principles.
Alert