Grantchester Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Greater Cambridge Partnership

Grantchester Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Greater Cambridge Partnership

No clear, unequivocal, or binding promise was made by Councillor Smith; even if a statement was made, it was not reasonable for the Parish Council to believe it would bind the GCP. No legitimate expectation arose, no material consideration was established, and the GCP fulfilled its duty of inquiry by seeking clarification from the relevant individuals.

Parties
Claimant: Grantchester Parish Council; Defendant: Greater Cambridge Partnership; Interested Party: Cambridgeshire County Council; Interested Party: South Cambridgeshire District Council; Interested Party: Cambridge City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Material Consideration, Duty of Inquiry, Public Consultation, Decision Making Powers
Administrative Law Local Government Law Planning Law Legitimate Expectation Material Consideration Duty of Inquiry Public Consultation Decision Making Powers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grantchester Parish Council

Claimant

Greater Cambridge Partnership

Defendant

Cambridgeshire County Council

Interested Party

South Cambridgeshire District Council

Interested Party

Cambridge City Council

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding legitimate expectation arose from an alleged promise by a councillor regarding the Haslingfield Greenway route.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged promise constituted a material consideration for the Greater Cambridge Partnership's decision.
  3. 3 Whether the Greater Cambridge Partnership breached its duty of inquiry under the Tameside principle.

Ratio Decidendi

No clear, unequivocal, or binding promise was made by Councillor Smith; even if a statement was made, it was not reasonable for the Parish Council to believe it would bind the GCP. No legitimate expectation arose, no material consideration was established, and the GCP fulfilled its duty of inquiry by seeking clarification from the relevant individuals.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed