Cherkley Campaign Ltd, R (on the application of) v Mole Valley District Council & Anor
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS
- LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
Areas of Law
- Environmental Law
- Administrative Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case concerned Cherkley Estate's development into a hotel and golf course within a protected landscape area. The planning permission granted was initially quashed in judicial review due to failures in applying policy requirements on need and landscape impact. The Court of Appeal overturned this decision, emphasizing the focus on the policy text over supporting text, confirming rationality in planning judgments, and concluding that reasons provided were legally adequate.
Judgment
Lord Justice Richards :
This appeal concerns the grant of planning permission for the development of Cherkley Court and land on the Cherkley Estate near Leatherhead, Surrey, into a hotel and spa complex and an exclusive 18 hole golf course. The whole estate is within the Surrey Hills Area of Great Landscape Value (“the AGLV”) and part of the proposed golf course is within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (“the AONB”). The planning permission was granted on 21 September 2012 by the local planning authority, Mole Valley District Council (“the Council”), to Longshot Cherkley Court Limited (“Longshot”). Cherkley Campaign Limited (“Cherkley Campaign”) brought a claim for judicial review to challenge the grant of planning permission. The claim succeeded before Haddon-Cave J who by order dated 22 August 2013 quashed the planning permission. The Council and Longshot both bring appeals against that order, with permission granted by Sullivan LJ. They also appeal against Haddon-Cave J’s costs order dated 15 November 2013, but the costs appeals are contingent on the outcome of the main appeals.
The facts are set out at paras 5 to 27 of the judgment of Haddon-Cave J. Rather than repeat them here, I will refer to salient features as necessary when considering the issues on the appeal. It is, however, relevant to note at this stage that the decision to grant permission was made by the Council’s Development Control Committee (“the Committee”) by a bare majority of 10 to 9 after a prolonged decision-making process and that it was contrary to the recommendation in the officers’ reports. The grant of permission was accompanied by a lengthy summary of reasons, drafted by the officers, which is quoted in full at para 27 of the judgment below.
The issues in the appeal can be considered under the headings of (1) development plan policy, (2) landscape impact, (3) Green Belt policy and (4) reasons.
I should say at once that Haddon-Cave J examined the case with great thoroughness and style. He was not at all impressed by the arguments in favour of a golf course development in this area of outstanding natural beauty and/or great landscape value and he expressed himself in strong terms in concluding that the decision of the majority of the Committee suffered from error of law, irrationality and inadequacy of reasons. After initial reading of his judgment I approached the appeals with a disinclination to interfere with it. In the end, however, I have b