Edward Blacker, R (on the application of) v Chelmsford City Council

17 January 2023

[2023] EWCA Civ 25

Court of Appeal

A local resident challenged the council's rejection of a housing plan. The council first paused to check details, then rejected the plan. The court agreed with the council; the initial pause wasn't a promise to approve, and there was no proof the council was biased.

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.

Edward Blacker, R (on the application of) v Chelmsford City Council

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

Bedford Park Developments v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor

Whitley Parish Council, R (on the application of) v North Yorkshire County Council & Anor

Mid Suffolk District Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

Glenn Kinnersley, R (on the application of) v Maidstone Borough Council