In R ( FRIENDS OF WEST OXFORDSHIRE COTSWOLDS ) v WEST OXFORDSHIRE DC ( 2024 ) EWHC 2291 ( Admin ) there are applied the GENERAL PRINCIPLE ( BODDINGTON ) that, once pronounced unlawful by a Court, an administrative act is recognized as never having had legal effect, and the GENERAL PRINCIPLE ( WHITLEY ) that where operations do not comply with a planning permission , read together with its conditions, they would be unauthorised and unlawful. The Court states the conditions for the latter principle to apply.

R (HALTON BC) v SoS (2024) EWHC 2030 (Admin) involved a costs order made against the local planning authority pursuant to Section 250 in the Local Government Act 1972 after its expert witness failed to come up to proof during cross-examination at a called-in public inquiry resulting in the inquiry process being aborted.  Fordham J set out the following key points from the judicial review case law:-

1. The judicial review Court could intervene in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction where the costs decision-maker had materially misdirected themselves, or the decision was unreasonable in a public law sense;
2. Clear and intelligible reasons had to be given for the decision;
3. The decision letter had to be read straightforwardly and as a whole;
4. The decision as to costs involved a wide statutory power vested in the costs decision-maker: decision was not unreasonable because a different decision-maker might have taken a different view, or because there was room for significant disagreement;
5. There was a clear distinction between interpretation of policy (appropriate for judicial analysis on an objective correctness standard) and application of policy (an exercise of judgment for the primary decision-maker subject to a reasonableness standard);
6. Public law unreasonableness meant that the decision was outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker, or there was a demonstrable flaw in their reasoning;
7. The Courts should respect the expertise of specialist planning decision-makers;
8. A decision-maker could depart from policy guidance if clear reasons were given;
9. The reasons had to be intelligible and adequate: Decision Letters should be read in a straightforward manner recognising that they were addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and arguments advanced: their conclusions should not be laboriously directed in an effort to find fault.

EIAs are not on obstacle course for decision-makers. The purpose of an EIA is to improve environmental decision-making. The significance of an impact for assessment purposes is not legally distinct from that for determination purposes. So held in R ( Boswell ) v SoS ( 2024 ) EWHC 2128 ( Admin ).

Environmental judicial review cases can attract a closer intensity of reasonableness review. There is however no rigid test for a uniformly heightened scrutiny. So held in R ( Fighting Dirty ) v Environment Agency ( 2024 ) EWHC 2029 ( Admin ).

RICHMOND UPON THAMES LBC v ARIYO ( (2024) EWCA Civ 960 is concerned with the general principle of planning law that changes of use are generally judged by reference to the “ planning unit “.

The planning unit , at least in general terms, is the whole of an area in single occupation used for a main purpose to which other purposes are ancillary. The concept of an ancillary use is also a well-established part of planning law; and where a change of use is permitted it will generally extend to land used as ancillary to the changed use, if part of the same planning unit.

R ( MEHTA ) v KENSINGTON & CHELSEA ( 2024 ) EWHC1986 ( Admin ) concerned the Council’s decision to revoke a Certificate of Lawful Proposed Use or Development on the basis that materially false information had been given in support of the application for the Certificate. The Court observed, at para 35, that a local authority’s decision to revoke a Certificate comprises 3 elements : ( 1 ) there must be a finding that false statements were made, or information withheld; ( 2 ) there needs to be a finding that any false statements or withheld information were material; and ( 3 ) if positive findings are made in each of those, then it is for the authority to decide whether to exercise its discretion to revoke the Certificate.

The Government has announced an overhaul of the planning system. Measures include to give all Councils in England new, mandatory, housing targets’ updating the method used to calculate housing targets, and requiring Councils to ensure houses are built in the right places and development is proportionate to the size of existing communities.

The default answer to brownfield development is to be : “ Yes. “ Land released in Green Belts is to be subject to “ golden rules”. Changes are to be made in relation to  right to buy  and capital receipts.

There will be a Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and revisions to the NPPF before the end of 2024.

A Government Consultation seeks views on revisions to the NPPF and on a number of wider planning policy reforms, including planning fees, Local Plan intervention criteria, and thresholds for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

Where Lidl and Aldi had each applied for planning permission to develop a discount supermarket on different parcels of land outside a Town Centre, but within the same settlement, it had been unlawful for the LPA to have granted planning permission to Aldi without comparing its proposal to that of Lidl. The need to undertake a comparison is a ” material consideration” only if it is so obviously material that it would be irrational not to assess it. However, here that high threshold was met on the facts so held in LIDL v EAST LINDSEY DC (2024) EWHC 1641 ( Admin ).

In R (GURAJENA) v NEWHAM LBC (2024) EWHC 1745 (Admin) the Court holds that , for the purposes of determining whether a local authority had complied with its duty to consult in relation to planning applications, “ adjoining “ embraces not only properties which are contiguous, but also those that in the judgment of the authority are very near or lying close to the application site.