Dover District Council v CPRE Kent [2017] UKSC 79
The point in plain English: There is no general common-law rule requiring reasons every time a council grants planning permission. But reasons can be legally required in exceptional circumstances, particularly where a major and controversial proposal is approved contrary to the officer’s recommendation and the critical planning issues would otherwise be impossible to understand.
What happened
Dover District Council granted permission for a very large development affecting an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Officers had recommended a different approach, but the planning committee resolved to approve the scheme.
The Environmental Impact Assessment regime also imposed a specific reasons requirement. The explanation subsequently given did not adequately reveal why members considered the scale of development justified despite the acknowledged landscape harm.
What the Supreme Court decided
The Supreme Court held that the reasons were inadequate. In addition to the statutory EIA requirement, the common law can require reasons where fairness and good administration make them necessary. The unusual combination here — major development, serious environmental harm, substantial public controversy and a committee departing from professional advice — demanded an intelligible explanation of the decisive issues.
The permission remained quashed and the council’s appeal was dismissed.
Why Dover matters
Dover should not be turned into a rule that every grant of planning permission needs a written essay. Its importance is narrower: where members make a surprising or controversial departure on a major issue, the decision must still be capable of being understood and, where the law requires reasons, those reasons must address the real point.
See our guide to planning officer reports, committees and reasons.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.