Davison, R (on the application of) v Elmbridge Borough Council
The Council unlawfully failed to take into account its previous decision that the proposal would have an adverse impact on Green Belt openness when determining the second application for planning permission. The principle of consistency extends to the underlying reasoning of quashed decisions, and the unexplained change in position was not justified.
- Parties
- Claimant: Matthew Davison; Defendant: Elmbridge Borough Council
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 02 May 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Decision quashed
- Legal Topics
- Consistency in Decision Making, Material Considerations, Green Belt Policy, Judicial Review of Planning Permissions
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Matthew Davison
Claimant
Elmbridge Borough Council
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the principle of consistency in planning decision-making require consideration of a previously quashed decision and its underlying reasoning?
- 2 Was the Council's failure to address its prior adverse finding on Green Belt openness unlawful?
Ratio Decidendi
The Council unlawfully failed to take into account its previous decision that the proposal would have an adverse impact on Green Belt openness when determining the second application for planning permission. The principle of consistency extends to the underlying reasoning of quashed decisions, and the unexplained change in position was not justified.
Court Disposition
Decision quashed
Orders
- The Council's planning permission dated 26 April 2017 is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment