SPVRG Ltd v Pembrokeshire County Council dealt with the grant of planning permission, against officer recommendation, for the installation of bases for holiday lodges, spa facility and holiday apartments outside the settlement boundary, contrary to local plan policy. In practice, the application would have formed an extension to an existing holiday park.
The planning committee resolved to grant permission contrary to officer recommendation, due to the economic benefits of the proposed scheme. The recommendation was referred to full council, as it was against officer recommendation, and without reasons, full council endorsed the decision of the planning committee. Permission to bring a judicial review was granted on the basis no or no adequate reasons were given for the decision, and the way the council dealt with the economic benefits was unreasonable and unlawful.
The defendant accepted that, although there is generally no duty to give reasons for the grant of planning permission, here the duty did arise as the planning committee resolved contrary to officer recommendation and in conflict with the development plan.
Judge Jarman KC found that the reasons given by the council did not adequately deal with development in the countryside, sustainability and precedent, nor the detrimental impact on existing static caravan sites as a result of granting this permission as part of the overall economic assessment. The major departure was not accompanied by sufficient reasons to inform others how questions of development in the countryside, sustainability, and economic impacts would be considered in the future, giving rise to substantial prejudice.
The judgment helpfully sets out the relevant case law regarding the consideration of comments made by members. The judge also found the tenor of the planning committee’s debate, focusing on the benefits of the proposal without considering the impact on existing operators, was too narrow an approach.
The case is a helpful reminder of the case law surrounding the giving of reasons when a decision is taken to grant planning permission against officer advice and contrary to the development plan. It highlights the potential pitfalls where relying on the economic benefits of a proposal – as whilst many schemes will presumably bring some economic benefit, the net impact on the wider areas including any dis-benefit to competitors must also form part of a balanced assessment, which may be a difficult exercise.
The recently published Planning and Infrastructure Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring that members undertake training before exercising planning functions. It will be interesting to see what form those regulations may take, and the impact mandatory training may have on the decisions of future planning committees.
