Davies, R (on the application of) Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

On a challenge to planning officer reports, the question is whether the advice was seriously misleading on a matter bearing upon the decision and uncorrected before the decision.

Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314

If a committee accepts officer recommendations, the reasons are those in the officer's report. Debate among committee members is insignificant.

Scottish Widows PLC v Cherwell DC [2013] EWHC 3968 (Admin) and R(Cook) v RBKC [2024] EWHC 42 (Admin)

Lack of reference to an issue in an officer's report doesn't mean it wasn't considered; a contrary conclusion requires overwhelming evidence.

South Bucks v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953

Decision-makers can weigh material considerations as they see fit, rationally. Planning judgment is theirs; Wednesbury unreasonableness is a high bar.

Tesco Stores v SSE [1995] 1 WLR 759 and R (Newsmith Stainless Ltd) v SoS [2017] PTSR 1126

No duty to give reasons for granting planning permission exists, unless the aggrieved party shows substantial prejudice from inadequate reasoning.

South Bucks (No 2)

Decision-makers use local knowledge and common sense; planners have expertise and understand the legal context.

R (Bishop’s Stortford Civic Federation) v East Herts DC [2014] PTSR 1035