Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Rory Walsh, R (on the application of) v Horsham District Council

21 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2640 (Admin)
High Court
A council allowed a football club to replace its grass pitch with artificial turf, even though a big old tree would be harmed. A nearby resident sued. The judge said the council gave enough reasons for its decision, even if they were short, and that the council was allowed to make its own judgment on the matter.

Key Facts

  • •Horsham District Council granted planning permission for the conversion of a grass football pitch to a 3G surface, despite concerns about the loss of a veteran ash tree.
  • •The claimant, a nearby resident, challenged the decision through judicial review.
  • •The main issue was whether the council demonstrated "wholly exceptional reasons" for the tree's loss, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework.
  • •The council's planning officers initially recommended refusal, but the planning committee approved the application.
  • •The council subsequently entered into a Section 106 agreement to address concerns about insufficient planning conditions.
  • •The council argued the 3G pitch's financial benefits and community advantages constituted "wholly exceptional reasons".

Legal Principles

There is no general common law duty to give reasons for granting planning permission, but reasons should be provided in cases of substantial public opposition, against officer advice, or for major departures from the development plan. Reasons must be intelligible and adequate.

R (CPRE Kent) v Dover DC [2017] UKSC 79; South Bucks District Council v Porter (No. 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953; Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [2017] PTSR 1081

Planning decisions are fact-sensitive and shouldn't be hypercritically scrutinized; committees are entitled to differ from officer recommendations, but reasons for that difference should be articulable.

St Modwen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWCA Civ 1643; R (Tesco Stores Ltd) v Reigate and Banstead BC [2024] EWHC 2327 (Admin)

"Wholly exceptional reasons" and "suitable compensation strategy" are separate, cumulative requirements for permitting the loss of irreplaceable habitats.

National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 186(c); Juden v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2021] EWHC 1368 (Admin)

A rationality challenge to a planning decision is difficult to succeed; the weighing of interests is for the decision-maker, not the court.

Seddon Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) 42 P & CR 26; Newsmith v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 74; R (Morge) v Hampshire County Council [2011] UKSC 2

Outcomes

Claim for judicial review dismissed.

The committee's reasons, while brief, were intelligible and adequate when read in conjunction with the officer reports. The committee's different conclusion on "wholly exceptional reasons" was a legitimate exercise of planning judgment, not irrational.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.