A planning inspector, in determining a planning appeal, is under a duty to give reasons for his decision. Lord Brown expanded on that by stating as follows in South Bucks District Council v Porter [2004] UKHL 33; [2003] 2 PLR 101: “The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the “principal important controversial issues”, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved”. However, he also made it clear that a reasons challenge will succeed only if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that it has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.
A reasons challenge was successful in Parker v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWCA Civ 461; [2010] PLSCS 121. It arose out of an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for an order quashing a decision by a planning inspector to grant planning permission for the erection of 15 cabins at an angling centre. The appellant was an adjoining landowner.
The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the inspector’s decision letter was that he had misconstrued the effect of a particular policy in the development plan – EM10 – that sought to control and restrict new chalet or static caravan development. The court did not accept that this was so, but one of the related questions for the court was whether the inspector had given adequate reasons for his conclusion. It held that he had not and that the appellant had been substantially prejudiced by his failure to do so.
Elias LJ said: “There is a real question mark over whether the inspector properly directed himself as to the appropriate factors to consider when assessing the nature of the site [as an existing site within policy EM10]. Whilst I am not satisfied that he wrongly understood what the policy required, I am left in real doubt how he applied the policy to the facts. Reasons would have resolved that one way or the other. Without reasons, the appellant is not able to say whether the inspector has reached a conclusion in accordance with the law or not”.
John Martin is a freelance writer
