In Broadview Energy Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (see PP2015/114), the claimant separately contended that the secretary of state’s decision was also unlawful because – before taking it – he failed to inform the claimant of the correspondence passing between the constituency MP, on the one hand, and himself and the minister of housing on the other. The claimant had no opportunity to comment upon it. Similarly, the claimant had not been notified of the meetings between the constituency MP and the minister for housing, nor given an equal opportunity to put its case to the latter in person. This was in breach of natural justice and common law fairness.
The court cited the decision of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Hopkins Developments Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 470, in which Jackson LJ stated that the following principles of natural justice apply in planning appeal inquiries: (1) Any party to a planning inquiry is entitled (a) to know the case which he has to meet and (b) to have a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions in relation to that opposing case. (2) If there is a procedural unfairness that materially prejudices a party to a planning inquiry, that may be a good ground for quashing the inspector’s decision.
(In that case, Beatson LJ also added that the “right to be heard” limb of the common law principles gives the individual the opportunity to put its case, and to do that the authorities in the planning context show that what is needed is knowledge of the issues in fact before the decision-maker.)
The court then rejected this ground of challenge also, holding that there was no procedural unfairness. The claimant knew the case being advanced by the objectors and the constituency MP, and the issues on which they relied. None of the matters raised in the constituency MP’s correspondence were new; all had been made in material before the planning inquiry. The lobby and tea room meetings were of no consequence. The claimant had had a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions in relation to the opposing case. They were matters that it dealt with in its evidence and submissions to the planning inquiry.
Finally, the court pointed out that rule 17(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 was of no assistance to the claimant, since none of the letters received after the close of the planning inquiry fell within its terms.
John Martin is a planning law consultant
