The Planning Committee granted permission without providing clear, recorded reasons for doing so during its deliberation, despite multiple legal and procedural factors that trigger a duty to justify such a decision. These include departure from the development plan, application of the tilted balance under paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, absence of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and high public opposition. This failure renders the decision procedurally unfair and unlawful under established case law.
Annotated Fact and Case Bundle
| 🧾 Triggering Factor | 📌 Evidence in Record | ⚖️ Legal Obligation to Provide Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Departure from Development Plan | Conflicts with CP10 (countryside), CP14 (transport), CP19 (infrastructure) acknowledged by officer report | PPG Para 036: “Reasons must be stated where a proposal is approved contrary to the development plan.” |
| Tilted Balance Applied (NPPF §11d) | Officer invokes 2.7YHLS and paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF to justify approval | Oakley v SCDC [2017]: Reasons are required when permission is granted using the tilted balance, particularly where harm is acknowledged. |
| 180+ Public Objections | Public objections raised by residents and both Medstead & Four Marks Parish Councils | CPRE Kent v Dover [2016]: Where public interest is high, reasons must be given to ensure transparency and accountability. |
| Sustainability and Infrastructure in Doubt | Committee members questioned walk distances, lack of lighting, infrastructure stress | NPPF §7–8: Sustainable development must be properly evaluated; failure to explain contradicts guidance. |
| EIA Exemption Based on Expired Screening | Officer relied on 2014 screening for different applicant; no fresh screening under 2017 Regs | Berkeley v SSCLG [2001]: Where EIA is bypassed, rigorous reasoning is required to ensure proper environmental consideration. |
Legal Notes – Supporting Case Law
🧷 Oakley v South Cambridgeshire DC [2017] EWCA Civ 71
The Court of Appeal held that failure to provide reasons for granting permission, especially where there is conflict with the development plan and the tilted balance is engaged, constitutes a breach of the legal duty of fairness and transparency.
🧷 R (CPRE Kent) v Dover DC [2016] EWCA Civ 936
Confirmed that controversial or publicly opposed decisions require reasons to be recorded, even when there is no statutory obligation, because of the principles of natural justice and the right to understand administrative decisions.
🧷 Berkeley v Secretary of State [2001] 2 AC 603 (HL)
Where EIA is not conducted despite likely significant environmental effects, the decision-maker must explain why, and failing to do so renders the decision procedurally unlawful.
✅ Summary
The Committee failed to provide any clear reasons for granting permission despite multiple legal triggers that required them to do so: conflict with the development plan, application of paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, high public objection, questions over sustainability, and the absence of an EIA. The decision notice and deliberation transcript do not contain any record of how the harms were balanced against benefits. This lack of reasoning breaches the legal principles articulated in Oakley, CPRE Kent, and Berkeley, and deprives the public and the courts of the ability to scrutinise the basis for approval. The decision is therefore unlawful.