The conduct of a planning inquiry in England into a called in planning application is governed by the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000. However, as the courts have constantly made clear, the rules of natural justice also apply, with the result that the inspector is under a duty to act fairly. It is seen as essential, for instance, that the parties to an inquiry feel that they have had a fair hearing, and that their case has been properly taken into account.
In Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 375 (Admin) the claimant was a member of an amenity group that had objected to the redevelopment of a site covering 3.5ha lying on the south side of the river Thames. He applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the Act”) to quash the decision of the secretary of state to grant planning permission for the redevelopment, having called in the planning application. One of his grounds of challenge involved an allegation of procedural impropriety. He contended that not only did he not receive a fair hearing, but also that the inspector displayed an apparent bias against him.
Following the inquiry, the claimant had written a letter to PINS raising a number of complaints about the conduct of the inspector at the inquiry. They included “counting down” the claimant’s allowed time for speaking, and not doing so for other parties; making unwarranted interruptions that gave the impression that the inspector was hostile to him and generally acting unfairly towards him.
The judge referred to the test for apparent bias laid down in Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 387, namely whether having regard to all the circumstances a fair minded observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the inspector was biased, and decided that the test had not been met.
However, in his view the inspector’s conduct fell below that which was to be expected. The question to be determined, therefore, was whether in all the circumstances the overall conduct of the inquiry, and the procedural irregularities, had led to a serious prejudice to the claimant. The court held that it had not, with the result that the requirements of section 288(5)(b) of the Act were not satisfied.
John Martin is a planning law consultant
