Golf course judicial review case reversed on appeal

18 May 2014 by

22-ep-cherkley-court-2-W1200Cherkley Campaign Ltd, (R o.t.a ) v. Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd, Court of Appeal, 7 May 2014 read judgment

 The Court of Appeal has reversed the robustly expressed view of Haddon-Cave J (see my post here)  that the grant of planning permission to a proposed “exclusive” golf club in Surrey should be quashed.

 The local planning authority had originally granted permission by the barest of majorities – 10-9, and against its planning officer’s recommendation. The judge had thought that the authority’s decision was irrational, and had misinterpreted or misapplied the concept of “need” in the applicable planning policies.

The Court of Appeal roundly disagreed with these and the other grounds on which the judge quashed the decision.

Indeed, the whole debate about whether the area “needed” another golf course turned out to be misplaced, according to the CA. It decided that the relevant policies did not so require, and even if they did, it

was an unexacting requirement and was capable in principle of being met by demonstrating an unmet demand for an elite facility of the type proposed.

Judged against that standard, the planning authority’s decision was not irrational.

Contrast what the judge had said:

“Need” does not simply mean “demand” or “desire” by private interests. Nor is mere proof of “viability” of such demand enough. The fact that Longshot could sell membership debentures to 400 millionaires in UK and abroad who might want to play golf at their own exclusive, ‘world class’, luxury golf club in Surrey does not equate to a “need” for such facilities in its proper public interest sense.

In similar vein, the CA thought that the authority had been rational in coming to the view that the golf course did not have a detrimental impact on the local landscape, part of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The following extract from [53] in Richards LJ’s judgment demonstrates the high standard an applicant has to discharge in order to make a ground of irrationality stick:

…whilst in the light of the evidence I see considerable force in the officers’ advice, I am not persuaded that the weight of the evidence and advice was such as to leave no room for members rationally to conclude as a matter of planning judgment, in the light of all the written material and what they had seen on their site visit or visits, that the overall landscape character would not be compromised.

The other successful grounds before the judge were similarly dismissed.


The CA’s decision, briskly reversing a robustly expressed judgment, reminds us that in the world of planning judicial reviews it is not easy to achieve the quashing of a decision, unless there is a manifest error of law. A decision involving some exercise of planning judgment is always difficult to review. You cannot quash a decision just because you, the judge, would have reached a different decision. To do so risks the judge straying into matters which it is for the planning authority, not the judge, to decide.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;

  1. finolamoss says:

    It would appear that the CA have removed the rule of law from planning decisions.

    As this judgement sets a precedent that even if judicial review is robustly granted, the planning officer is against the permission, and it is only granted on the barest majority, permission is still justified on the grounds effectively business interests.

    Soon most of our planning departments will be privatised allowing only business interests of the most powerful to dominate.

    Our green and pleasant land is to be sold to the highest bidder.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: