Key Facts
- •Mr. Blacker, a local resident, sought judicial review of Chelmsford City Council's refusal of a housing development application.
- •The application involved both brownfield and greenfield land, with ongoing enforcement action for unlawful waste disposal on part of the site.
- •The Council's planning officer recommended refusal, citing loss of employment land, impact on the countryside, unsustainable location, and insufficient s.106 agreement.
- •The Council's constitution required deferral if the committee wished to contradict the officer's recommendation.
- •The committee initially deferred the application, intending to grant permission subject to conditions.
- •After further objections and considerations, the committee ultimately refused the application.
- •Mr. Blacker appealed, arguing misdirection, incorrect application of the consistency principle, and a real risk of closed minds.
Legal Principles
Consistency principle in planning decisions: A previous decision on the same or materially similar application is a material consideration. Departing from it requires engagement with the reasons and explanation for the departure.
North Wiltshire DC v Secretary of State for the Environment and Clover (1993) P&CR 137; St Albans City & District Council v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2015] EWHC 655 (Admin); King’s Cross Railway Lands Group v London Borough of Camden [2007] EWHC 1515 (Admin)
A planning decision doesn't take effect until notified to the applicant. The committee can change its mind before notification, even without material change of circumstances.
R (Burkett) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC (No 1) [2002] UKHL 23, [2002] 1 WLR 1593
Judicial review for closed minds: Requires 'clear pointers' indicating a predisposition to reject the application, especially for councillors.
R(Lewis) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council [2009] 1 WLR 83
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found no substance in any of the appellant's grounds. The initial deferral was not a substantive decision to grant permission, so the consistency principle did not apply. There was no evidence of closed minds.