R (on the application of Moakes) (Appellant) v Canterbury City Council and another (Respondents)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0147

Parties

Appellant(s)

Sarah Moakes

Respondent(s)

Canterbury City Council

Gary Walters (on behalf of HICO Group)

Issue

Did the Appellant suffer material prejudice as a result of Canterbury City Council’s refusal to allow more than one group to participate in a planning committee meeting?

Facts

The case concerns a challenge to the lawfulness of the decision of Canterbury City Council (“CCC”) to grant planning permission for a proposed development, including a winery, in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding National Beauty on 8 September 2023. The application for permission had been made by Mr Walters as managing director of three associated companies known as HICO Group. The CCC’s decision was made following a meeting of its planning committee, governed by Appendix I of its Constitution. The CCC considered that its Constitution allowed only one group to speak against the proposal. The Kent Downs AONB Unit held this position. The CCC thus informed representatives of Natural England (“NE”) and of the Campaign to Protect Rural England – Kent Branch (“CPRE Kent”) that they could speak against the proposal only in an individual capacity. Kent Downs AONB Unit represented the views of NE. CPRE Kent was not represented at the meeting. The Appellant, a member of CPRE Kent, also decided against registering to speak at the meeting, as she believed CPRE Kent would be speaking. In consequence, only one person spoke against, and four people spoke in favour of, the proposed development. The Appellant challenged the decision on four grounds, including on grounds of procedural unfairness. The High Court found that the CCC breached its Constitution and gave misleading advice in allowing the representatives of NE and CPRE Kent to speak only in an individual capacity. It nevertheless considered that the Appellant did not suffer material prejudice and, so, rejected the Appellant’s challenge on grounds of procedural unfairness. This was among the grounds unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court in respect of this issue.

Date of issue

18 August 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top