South Bucks District Council & Anor v Porter [2004] UKHL 33
The point in plain English: Planning reasons must be clear enough to tell the reader why the decision was reached and how the main controversial issues were resolved. They do not have to answer every argument or mention every material consideration.
The House of Lords test for reasons
Lord Brown drew together the earlier authorities. Reasons must be intelligible and adequate. They should explain the conclusions on the principal important controversial issues and disclose how any material issue of law or fact was resolved.
The required detail depends on the issues in the case. Decision letters should be read straightforwardly and without excessive legalism, bearing in mind that they are addressed to parties who already know the arguments.
A reasons challenge is not made out merely because the drafting could have been fuller. The person challenging the decision must show genuine substantial prejudice arising from the inadequacy.
Why Porter matters
Porter remains one of the leading authorities on reasons in planning decisions and is regularly used when assessing Inspectors’ decisions and planning officer reports.
See Planning Geek’s guide to planning officer reports, reasons and committees.
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.