Members openly admitted approving the application not on planning merit, but out of fear that a refusal would be overturned at appeal. This constitutes unlawful consideration, as the risk of appeal or costs is not a valid planning ground. The committee therefore failed to exercise proper judgment, violating principles set out in R (Wright) v Resilient Energy and Morge v Hampshire CC.
Annotated Quote Bundle – Reliance on Appeal Risk
| 🧾 Quote | 🎯 Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| “I actually think that if this was to go to appeal, we would probably lose that appeal. Because I think that this would be deemed to be acceptable, whether sustainable or not.” – Cllr Angela Glass | Confirms vote was influenced by expected appeal outcome, not the site’s planning merit or sustainability. |
| “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… basically, we have to give it permission.” – Cllr Anthony Williams (Chair) | Suggests planning judgment is bypassed due to housing land supply shortfall and fear of refusals being overturned. |
| “With the tilted balance in the state that we are in at the moment… I think that if this was to go to appeal, we would probably lose…” – Cllr Glass again, reinforced during debate | Reveals “tilted balance” is used not as a balancing test but as a reason to abandon discretion. |
| “If this is a sustainable development in this location… then I’d like the inspectorate to tell me why.” – Cllr Ashcroft | Indicates members were deferring to the Planning Inspectorate instead of deciding independently. |
⚖️ Legal Notes – Supporting Case Law
🧷 R (Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd [2014] EWHC 3136 (Admin)
This case affirms that planning decisions must be made through a fair and transparent process. It is unlawful for decision-makers to rely on irrelevant factors, including administrative convenience or speculative outcomes (e.g., appeal risks). The court criticised a process where decision-makers failed to engage with the merits in good faith and instead acted with an eye to avoiding future consequences.
Relevance: The committee’s repeated references to appeal outcomes—rather than assessing the unique and cumulative planning impacts of the proposed development—suggests a breakdown in lawful decision-making.
🧷 R v North Yorkshire County Council ex parte Brown & Co [2000]
This ruling makes it explicitly clear that fear of an appeal or associated costs is not a material consideration in the planning process. A local planning authority must not permit or refuse an application based on perceived legal or procedural risks but must assess it on planning policy, local impact, and evidence.
Relevance: Statements like “we’d lose on appeal” and “we basically have to give it permission” show that the decision was improperly influenced by non-material factors.
🧷 Morge v Hampshire County Council [2011] UKSC 2
The Supreme Court held that elected members must apply their own minds to the planning question at hand, not simply defer to officer recommendations or hypothetical decisions by other authorities. Councillors cannot outsource their responsibility by assuming an inspector would decide differently.
Relevance: Councillors here expressed reluctance, yet voted to approve out of belief that the Planning Inspectorate would allow it anyway. This undermines the core duty to make independent, policy-based planning decisions.