The need for consistency in determining planning appeals was one of the issues arising in Pertemps Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 2308 (Admin).
In North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 3 PLR 113, Mann LJ stated that one important reason why previous appeal decisions are capable of being a material consideration, is that like cases should be decided in a like manner to ensure consistency in the process. (The term “like cases” in this context means cases not distinguishable in some relevant aspect.) This is not saying that like cases must be decided alike. The decision maker must always exercise his own judgment. He is therefore free to disagree with the judgment of another. But before doing so, he ought to have regard to the importance of consistency, and give his reasons for departure from the previous decision.
This principle applies whether the decisions relate to the same appeal site, or to two different ones. In Pertemps, different sites within the area of the same local planning authority (“LPA”) were involved, but the earlier decision was a decision by the LPA. It had granted to a major motor vehicle manufacturer planning permission for a new despatch area on 14 hectares of land in the green belt.
Having recognized that this was “inappropriate development” within the green belt, it relied upon a local plan policy purporting to supplement the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF. That policy sanctioned inappropriate development allowing the “reasonable expansion of established businesses into the green belt” where the proposal “would make a significant contribution to the local economy or employment”.
The claimant in Pertemps was a major service provider, employing 150 people locally and 40,000 nationwide, that was seeking to construct a new office building on its existing site, similarly in the green belt. It applied to quash a decision by an inspector on appeal refusing planning permission for its proposed development, against the background of the same local plan policy. One of its main grounds was that the inspector had erred in law by failing to see that his approach was at odds with the earlier decision of the LPA granting planning permission to the major motor vehicle manufacturer.
The court upheld that ground. The earlier decision of the LPA was, in the circumstances, a material consideration in the claimant’s planning appeal. The inspector’s failure to have regard to it, and to explain why he was differing from the LPA’s interpretation and approach to the local plan policy, offended the principles laid down in North Wiltshire and subsequent decisions.
John Martin is a planning law consultant
