The judge, in his decision, emphasised that the statutory requirement for a local authority to provide summary reasons for granting planning permission was different from the requirement to provide full reasons for a refusal.
One of the grounds for the challenge, which was brought by local resident Daniel Coleman, was that the Council had failed to give adequate reasons for its grant of planning permission. Mr Coleman argued that the reasons given in the permission did not explain, as they should have done, how the Council had addressed the issues before it.
The judge, however, said that the reasons provided by the Council were "perfectly adequate".
The decision notice granting permission for the proposal had stated the reasons for approval, which were the same as had been recommended by the Council's planning officers in their report to the planning committee.
The reasons included a statement that the development would have no significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and that it could be accommodated on the site without significant adverse impact on local roads and the highway network. The notice also said that the benefits to the wider community of the provision of new educational facilities had been considered to outweigh the adverse impact on those with protected characteristics.
The judge said that the members of the planning committee had "clearly" accepted their officers' advice and followed the recommendation in which that advice was reflected and that "in the circumstances, clarity was not sacrificed to brevity".
"Whether seen as a free-standing statement of the Council's conclusions or read together with the officers' report, the reasons here were, I believe, perfectly adequate," he said.
The judge noted that the statutory duty to give reasons for grant of a conditional planning permission is a duty to include in the decision notice a summary of reasons for the grant together with a summary of the policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision to grant planning permission.
He said that this was "not to be equated with" the duty to give full reasons when refusing permission, nor with the duty of the Secretary of State to give reasons for a decision on appeal.
"What is required is a summary of the reasons for the grant, not a summary of the reasons for rejecting what had been said by objectors," he said.
