The committee’s decision to approve application 55318/001 was unlawfully influenced by repeated references to prior appeal outcomes by the Planning Manager, Mr. Upton. These comments improperly deflected attention from the specific characteristics and material harms of the site in question.
In particular, Mr. Upton cited appeals at Boyneswood Lane (2016), Gladman (2024), and Telegraph Lane (2025) as justification for approval of the current site. He characterised the application as “no different” from those, and directly advised members to “bear [those] in mind” during deliberations. This occurred after multiple councillors expressed legitimate concerns about the site’s sustainability, inaccessibility, and car dependency—matters which must be weighed site-specifically.
This framing constitutes a breach of the principle articulated in Morge v Hampshire CC [2011] UKSC 2, which requires members to exercise their own judgment and not merely defer to officer advice. It also offends the requirement for fairness and transparency in planning decision-making as set out in R (Wright) v Resilient Energy [2014] EWHC 3136 (Admin).
By overly emphasising the potential outcome of an appeal, and repeatedly comparing this case to past approvals, the officer materially distorted the balance of considerations and chilled proper scrutiny. The committee was effectively steered away from assessing the real and unique planning impacts of this application, rendering the process unfair and legally flawed.
Annotated Quote Bundle – Supporting Evidence
| Quote | Relevance |
|---|---|
| “I think the last thing I would remind members of is the 2016 appeal… for that Boyneswood Lane development just to the east of this site…” | Officer frames past appeal as final determinant, diminishing committee autonomy. |
| “…we had the Gladman Appeal last year… and Telegraph Lane… both allowed. This application before you is really no different… So I think those reasons are particularly pertinent to this application here.” | Strongly implies approval is inevitable and site-specific objections are futile. |
| “So just bear that in mind, please.” | Directive tone—subtle but inappropriate. Urges members to internalize external appeals rather than independently assess current harms. |
| “We are faced again and again, with applications that are not within a settlement policy boundary. But we haven’t got the housing land supply… we basically have to give it permission.” (Cllr Williams, Chair) | Chairman echoes officer logic—suggests policy conflict no longer matters, undercuts committee discretion. |
| “I think that if this was to go to appeal, we would probably lose… deemed acceptable whether sustainable or not.” (Cllr Glass) | Confirms officer rhetoric directly influenced member reasoning and vote. |
Legal Notes – Supporting Case Law
🧷 Morge v Hampshire County Council [2011] UKSC 2
Elected members must make their own decisions on planning matters, even when officer recommendations are clear.
🧷 R (Wright) v Resilient Energy [2014] EWHC 3136 (Admin)
Decisions must be reached through a transparent, fair, and rational process. Members must not be deflected from assessing material considerations.
🧷 R v North Yorkshire CC ex parte Brown & Co [2000]
Fear of appeal or costs is not a material consideration. Decisions must rest on planning merits, not administrative expediency.
✅ Summary
- Multiple direct quotes from the Planning Officer subtly steering the outcome.
- Echoed language by the Chair and Councillors showing actual influence.
- Clear divergence from Morge and Wright principles.
- A vote outcome that was arguably determined less by site merits and more by institutional pressure.