Back
Legal

Planning permission for zoo quashed

The High Court has quashed a planning permission granted by Cheshire East Council for the Holmes Chapel Zoo in Crewe. The council consented to the judgment, accepting that it had failed to provide adequate reasons for departing from its recent decision.

Just over a year earlier, the council refused a materially similar application relating to the same area for the proposed use of land for a zoo and wildlife conservation park. The grounds for refusal were as follows:

  • The proposed development would result in encroachment into the open countryside through development of open land and cause harm to its character and appearance.
  • By virtue of design and layout, the proposed development would remove the existing open character and appearance of the site from the surrounding area.

The council, in reaching this decision, followed the guidance in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires local planning authorities to work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area and noted that a solution had not been found that overcame the environmental harm identified.

Following the grant of permission for the Holmes Chapel Zoo, animal rights charity Freedom for Animals brought judicial review proceedings on a numerous grounds, including:

  • A failure to give adequate reasons for departing from the council’s previous findings regarding the policy compliance of materially the same proposal which it had previously rejected contrary to North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 65 P&CR 137, which provides that an earlier decision may be a material consideration and that similar cases should be decided consistently, with a requirement for reasons for a departure from an earlier decision to be given.
  • The council’s treatment of animal welfare concerns on the basis that the UK does not need new zoos as the industry should be winding down and, as such, the permission could not be justified.

The council conceded that it had failed to provide adequate reasons to explain its departure from the materially similar proposal, which had previously been refused. The council therefore consented to the quashing of the planning permission, with the application to now be reconsidered.

This decision is important as it highlights that previous decisions may constitute material considerations and while decision-makers may depart from those decisions, they must ensure clear reasons for doing so are provided. It is also a reminder to applicants that in making an application for a previously refused development the distinctions between the two which support the refusal of one and the approval of the other should be made clear.

Lea As is a solicitor in the planning & environmental team at Irwin Mitchell

Up next…