Where planning permission has been granted on appeal, in determining the scope of the permission it is proper to have regard to the terms of the decision letter as a whole. This was made clear, for instance, in R (on the application of Smith) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] EWCA Civ 262; [2003] Env LR 32. A useful illustration of that principle is provided by the decision in Barnes v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 1742 (Admin); [2010] PLSCS 193.
In that case, an inspector had granted planning permission on appeal for the erection of six wind turbines, following a public local inquiry. This was subject to conditions, including one requiring the approval of the local planning authority (LPA) for the final specifications and designs to be obtained before the development was commenced.
The claimants, who lived close to the appeal site, sought to quash the decision by means of an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. One of their grounds of challenge was that the inspector had failed to impose conditions limiting the size of the turbines and imposing requirements as to their energy output. They contended that this amounted to an error of law, because it would enable the LPA to approve larger turbines and turbines of lesser capacity than those assessed in the environmental statement.
The judge acknowledged that a grant of planning permission for a development that required an environmental impact assessment would be unlawful if it permitted development that could have significant effects on the environment that differed from those assessed in the environmental statement. However, he held that the permission granted by the inspector did not have that effect. Regard should be had to the decision letter as a whole. It was neither necessary nor appropriate to focus solely on the sentence that contained the formal grant.
When the decision letter was read as a whole, it was clear that he had granted planning permission for six wind turbines of the dimensions stated in a related paragraph of the letter. It would not be open to the LPA to approve turbines that differed in their dimensions. Furthermore, elsewhere in the decision letter, the turbines were referred to as having a stated generating capacity. There was no error of law on the part of the inspector.
John Martin is a freelance writer
