🧾 The committee’s justification:
- Approved because other nearby sites (e.g. in Four Marks) won appeals in 2024 and 2025,
- Approved on the grounds that a site on the same road was granted on appeal in 2016 (under interim housing supply shortfall conditions).
The recording of the Planning Committee meeting held on Thursday, 20th March 2025 at 6:00 PM can be viewed online by following the ‘Watch Online‘ link provided in the meeting agenda.
In the meeting, Cllr Angela Glass appeared to justify approval under the tilted balance on the basis that a nearby previous development — which she admits may not have been sustainable — could be used as precedent, and that an appeal inspector might approve it again. This line of reasoning suggests the tilted balance was applied not because the current proposal was proven sustainable, but because past approvals (potentially flawed themselves) …a lack of updated environmental evidence — especially in an area that has seen multiple approvals without EIA — means sustainability cannot be presumed, and the decision may be challengeable as irrational or procedurally flawed.
🧩 Why this is a potential ground for Judicial Review:
⚖️ 1. Misuse of precedent – Illegality
- Planning decisions must be made on the specific merits of the application, not based on fear of losing on appeal due to similar decisions elsewhere.
- Paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF requires a fresh, case-by-case weighing of harms and benefits.
- Citing unrelated appeals without applying that balance to the actual site is a legal misdirection.
📌 Precedent is not binding in planning law — each site is unique, especially where access, sustainability, and infrastructure are concerned.
⚖️ 2. Failure to assess present-day conditions – Irrationality
- A 2016 approval cannot be presumed valid in 2025 without current evidence of accessibility, infrastructure capacity, and environmental impact.
- Conditions in Medstead have changed: more population, more development, and more strain on services — all of which may render a site no longer sustainable.
⚖️ 3. Failure to exercise independent planning judgment – Procedural Impropriety
- If the decision was effectively made because “we don’t want to lose another appeal”, that is not a lawful or rational basis.
- Fear of appeal is not a planning reason.
The recording of the Planning Committee meeting held on Thursday, 20th March 2025 at 6:00 PM can be viewed online by following the ‘Watch Online‘ link provided in the meeting agenda.
✅ Supporting Quotes & Policy:
NPPF Paragraph 11(d) requires a “case-by-case” weighing of harms and benefits. Case law (e.g. R (Smech Properties) v Runnymede BC) confirms that:
“The exercise of planning judgment cannot be lawfully replaced by a desire to avoid appeal costs.”