In Solicitor’s Journal- 17 June 2014 – Leo Charalambides refers to R (on the application of KVP Ent Ltd) v South Bucks DC  EWHC 926 (Admin), to suggest the elucidation of decisions can be key in defending claims made against public bodies. He suggests a defendant is permitted to rely on the amplified reasons insofar as they elucidate the original reasons, but do not change or modify them. In this case he is referring to the case where an unsuccessful SEV applicant sought judicial review on the basis that the planning and licensing system reached different conclusions as to the appropriateness of a proposed lap dance club (Pandoras). Claiming that this was irrational, the applicant was presented with ‘amplified reasons’ for refusal: Justice Sales ruled such reasons provided a clearer justification for refusal, accepted the amplified reasons were not inconsistent with the earlier refusal and underlined the broad discretion that local authorities have to refuse licenses for SEVs, noting that the planning and licensing systems can draw different conclusions about appropriateness (one concerned with material impacts of development, the other with the impacts of use).
See ‘Loud and clear: amplified reasons in public law’ Solicitor’s Journal Vol 158 no 24 17-06-14