Planning committees play an important role in the decision-making process, particularly for larger, sensitive or controversial proposals. While committees are entitled to reach a different conclusion from the officer recommendation, their decisions must still be lawful, rational and based on material planning considerations. Where this does not occur, decisions can become legally vulnerable.

Departure from officer recommendation

A committee may lawfully depart from the professional recommendation of officers. However, where it does so, the reasons for the decision must be clearly articulated and grounded in planning policy and evidence. Simply disagreeing with the officer view, without explaining why planning harm arises or why benefits are outweighed, can expose a decision to challenge.

Vague or unsupported reasons

One of the most common sources of legal risk arises where reasons for refusal are expressed in broad or imprecise terms. References to "overdevelopment", "harm to character" or "impact on amenity" must be explained with sufficient clarity to show how and why harm occurs. Unsupported assertions or generic wording can be vulnerable to legal challenge or appeal.

Reliance on immaterial considerations

Committees must base decisions on material planning considerations. Matters such as competition between businesses, loss of trade, moral objections or general opposition unrelated to planning impacts are not material. Where it appears that a decision has been influenced by such considerations, it may be unlawful.

Failure to engage with the planning balance

Where policy requires a balancing exercise, decision-makers must demonstrate that they have carried out that balance. Ignoring benefits, mischaracterising evidence, or failing to explain why identified harm outweighs policy support can undermine the robustness of a decision.

Consistency and fairness

While each application must be determined on its own merits, unexplained inconsistency with recent decisions on similar sites or proposals can increase risk. Decision-makers are not bound by precedent, but they should explain why a different conclusion has been reached where circumstances appear comparable.

Practical implications

Understanding how committees are advised, how reasons are recorded and how decisions are framed is an important part of managing planning risk. Clear submissions, focused evidence and well-structured officer reports can assist committees in reaching defensible decisions and reduce the likelihood of legal challenge.

Disclaimer
This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute planning advice. Planning matters are site-specific and subject to change. Professional advice should be sought before taking action in relation to any particular site or proposal.