Key Facts
- •Canterbury City Council granted planning permission for a hybrid development (winery and warehousing) on land within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
- •A local resident, Sarah Moakes, challenged the permission on four grounds.
- •Statutory consultees (Natural England, Historic England, Kent Downs AONB Unit) objected to the development.
- •The applicant, HICO Group (with Chapel Down and Defined Wine), argued the development was in the public interest due to economic benefits.
- •The Council's planning committee approved the application despite objections.
- •The Claimant argued procedural unfairness in the public speaking process at the committee meeting.
- •The Claimant alleged the Council failed to give sufficient weight to the statutory consultees’ objections and did not adequately address a relevant appeal decision (Medway Appeal).
Legal Principles
Planning officers' reports should be read with reasonable benevolence, and it is only if the advice materially misleads the members that the decision is unlawful.
Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
Reasons for granting planning permission for EIA development must be intelligible and adequate, enabling understanding of the decision and conclusions on principal controversial issues.
South Bucks District Council and another v Porter (No. 2) [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1953
Expert bodies' views must be given considerable weight, and departure requires cogent and compelling reasons.
Shadwell Estates Ltd v Breckland DC [2013] EWHC 12 (Admin)
There's no requirement for public speaking at planning committee meetings, but fairness requires a fact-sensitive approach.
R (Spitalfields Historic Buildings Trust) v Tower Hamlets LBC [2023] P.T.S.R. 31
Planning policy must be interpreted objectively.
Tesco Stores v Dundee City Council [2012] PTSR 983
The NPPF paragraph 177 requires consideration of exceptional circumstances and public interest, including need, cost of alternatives, and environmental effects.
SoS for CLG and Knight Developments Ltd v Wealden DC [2017] JPL 625
A breach of procedure doesn't render a decision unlawful unless material prejudice is shown.
R(ClientEarth) v SoS for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2020] PTSR 1709
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found that although the Council breached its constitution regarding public speaking at the committee meeting, the claimant did not suffer material prejudice. The council's handling of statutory consultee objections and the Medway Appeal decision were also deemed legally sound.