CA-2024-001414 - [2025] EWCA Civ 927

Ms Moakes sought judicial review of the Council’s decision to grant permission on the following grounds:

In a carefully reasoned judgment, the Judge dismissed the claim on all four grounds. On Ground 4, she found that the OR did not mislead the committee in any of the respects alleged, and that conclusion is not challenged on appeal.

As to Ground 1, the Judge found that there was a breach of the Council’s constitution, which had the direct effect of putting off two national organisations who wished to speak at the meeting and who could have spoken consistently with the constitution [60]. However, that breach of the constitution was not enough in itself to justify quashing the decision. A breach of procedure is not enough to establish that there has been procedural unfairness; the claimant must establish that she suffered material prejudice as a result. On the evidence, no such prejudice had been established.

On Ground 2, the Judge found that the OR fairly and adequately summarised the objections to the development and gave adequate reasons for reaching contrary conclusions from those of the statutory consultees. On Ground 3, she concluded that the two developments were materially different, and that in each case the decision makers were making evaluative judgments on different evidence as to the level of need, on what alternatives might exist and on the level of harm to the environment. It was therefore unnecessary for the Council to give reasons for distinguishing the decision in the Medway appeal.

Ms Moakes appeals on the basis that the Judge was wrong to dismiss the claim on Grounds 1, 2 and 3. I shall consider each of these in turn.