Employment area — Application for residential development — Council failing to decide application within prescribed period — Inspector refusing appeal — Inspector failing to give adequate reasons — Application allowed
The second defendant council had designated an area of land as an employment area. Consistent with that designation, modern buildings, comprising an industrial unit and offices, had been constructed upon one part of the site. The claimant owned the remainder of the site, upon which it wished to construct a residential development of 89 flats.
The claimant applied for planning permission on 14 January 2004, but the second defendants failed to decide the application within the prescribed period. The claimant appealed to the first defendant under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Following an inquiry and a site visit, an inspector appointed by the first defendant dismissed the appeal.
The claimant applied, under section 288 of the 1990 Act, to set aside that decision on the ground that the inspector had failed to give reasons, as required by r 19(1) of the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors)(Inquiries Procedure)(England) Rules 2000.
Held: The application was allowed.
The inspector had failed to give proper and adequate reasons for his decision, as a result of which the claimant had suffered substantial prejudice. The decision letter contained flaws, the cumulative effect of which was that the inspector’s decision should be set aside.
The court accepted that the interpretation of policy was a matter for the decision maker, and that, should the interpretation be consistent with that policy, there would be no basis for intervention by the court.
A decision letter had to be read in good faith and references to policies had to be taken in the general context of the inspector’s reasoning. However, it was necessary to give intelligible reasons that enabled the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was. The adequacy of reasons had to be assessed by reference to whether a straightforward reading of the decision left room for genuine doubt as to what had been decided: see South Somerset District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 2 EGLR 203; [1993] 26 EG 121 and Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 66 P&CR 263.
In the present case, it was not clear from the decision letter how the inspector had interpreted the relevant structure plan and it could not be said whether his interpretation was one that the policy was reasonably capable of bearing. In all the circumstances, the reasoning in the decision letter was inadequate and prejudicial to the claimant.
David Holgate QC (instructed by Harold Benjamin) appeared for the claimant; James Strachan (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; Lisa Busch (instructed by the legal department of East Herts District Council) appeared for the second defendants.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
