The Supreme Court will next month consider the correct legal standard to be applied in assessing the adequacy of reasons provided by local planning authorities when granting planning permission.
The background to CPRE Kent v China Gateway International Limited is that the appellant (CGI) had applied to Dover District Council for planning permission for a large-scale residential development in an area of outstanding natural beauty.
The council’s planning committee granted permission, contrary to their planning officer’s recommendations.
The respondent, CPRE Kent, brought a claim for judicial review of the decision inter alia on grounds that the planning committee had not provided adequate reasons for its decision.
The claim was dismissed at first instances but allowed on appeal by the Court of Appeal in Campaign To Protect Rural England, Kent (CPRE), R (On the Application Of) v Dover District Council  EWCA Civ 936.
Lord Justice Laws said: “I consider that the Committee failed to give legally adequate reasons for their decision to grant planning permission. A statutory statement of reasons made under the EIA Regulations would have been required to grapple with the issue of harm much more closely than what the minutes disclose; and the strictures of NPPF paragraph 116 demand no less.”
He added: "This is an unusual case. As I stated at the outset, the scale of the proposed development is unprecedented in an AONB. This judgment, if my Lord agrees with it, should not be read as imposing in general an onerous duty on local planning authorities to give reasons for the grant of permissions, far removed from the approach outlined by Lang J in Hawksworth. As Lord Brown said in South Bucks, "the degree of particularity required depend[s] entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision"."
A panel of five Supreme Court justices – comprising Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lady Black and Lord Lloyd-Jones – will hear the case on 16 October 2017.