Where the Planning Inspectorate decides that a planning appeal should be dealt with by means of a hearing – sometimes referred to as an “informal hearing” – a much-simplified procedure is involved, with the inspector playing what is essentially an inquisitorial role. That procedure is governed by the Town and Country Planning (hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 (“the Rules”). However, principles of fairness and natural justice also apply.
In San Vicente v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 2713 the developer had appealed against the refusal of the local planning authority to grant planning permission for a residential scheme. The appeal was dealt with by means of a hearing, the date and venue of which was, by an oversight, not notified to the objectors. The hearing was concluded in a day. On the following day, the error was brought to the inspector’s intention.
It was accepted by the Planning Inspectorate that (1) there must be some form of rehearing, because it was not right that the objectors should be met with a decision that was made in their absence and (2) the evidence presented at the first hearing should form no part of the evidence on which the inspector ultimately made his decision. The Planning Inspectorate did not, however, consider that an entirely fresh inspector should be appointed.
Following the rehearing, the inspector allowed the appeal and granted planning permission. The claimants, who were among the objectors, sought to quash that decision on the ground of procedural unfairness. They argued that the rehearing, which was over in half a day, was not as thorough as desirable. Matters were dealt with far more concisely, and in a far quicker time, than had been the case – as shown by the evidence – on the earlier hearing. They were concerned that as matters had been considered and evidence heard on the first occasion, the inspector had decided that it was not necessary to go over the same ground again on the second occasion.
The court quashed the inspector’s decision, concluding that not only was there an appearance of unfairness but that there was also material to show that there was indeed unfairness in the way that the case was dealt with. With the benefit of hindsight, a lot of time and money would have been saved had the rehearing taken place before an entirely fresh inspector.
John Martin
