In Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc [1985] 1 AC 661 Lord Scarman stated as follows: “Personal circumstances of an occupier, personal hardship, the difficulties of businesses which are of value to the community are not to be ignored in the administration of planning control. It would be inhuman pedantry to exclude from the control of the environment the human factor.” (He gave the only speech, and the other law lords concurred in it.) This establishes, therefore, that not only can personal circumstances in such an instance be capable of amounting to a material consideration, but also they can be capable of having sufficient weight to override applicable planning policies.
The claimant in Davies v Welsh Ministers [2013] EWHC 2260 (Admin) was the tenant of an agricultural holding. His mother had lived for over 60 years in the farmhouse comprised within the holding. He applied to quash the decision of an inspector, on appeal, to grant planning permission for an equine centre and tourist accommodation on the holding. The claimant’s landlords, who were the appellants in the appeal, had submitted a unilateral undertaking, the terms of which would have secured the claimant’s mother’s entitlement to live in the farmhouse for the rest of her life. However, it was possible that implementation of the planning permission would significantly alter her living conditions, and render impractical her continued occupation of the farmhouse. The sole ground of challenge was that the inspector had failed to have proper regard to the personal circumstances of the claimant’s mother.
The court allowed the application, holding that on reading the decision letter in a fair and broad-minded manner the inspector had failed to have regard to those personal circumstances as factors that were genuinely capable of overriding countervailing policy considerations. She had not identified them as a main issue. In fact, she had said that the situation of the claimant’s mother was more appropriately dealt with through the tenancy agreement and legislation, and that she could find no planning policy reasons to insist on her occupation continuing as before. The decision letter gave no indication that the inspector realised that her decision had the potential to affect the operation of the statutory scheme for agricultural holdings, either by bringing it into play or at least by altering the way in which it might apply.
John Martin
