In South Bucks District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2004] UKHL 33; [2004] 4 PLR 50, the House of Lords had to consider a challenge to a decision of a planning inspector to grant planning permission based in part on the adequacy of the reasons given by him. Lord Brown stated: “The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the ‘principal important controversial issues’, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved.” However, he went on to explain that for a reasons challenge to succeed, the aggrieved party must satisfy the court that he has been genuinely substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.
This approach will also be taken in respect of other planning decisions, for example one made in response to an application for a certificate of appropriate alternative development (CAAD) under section 17 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. The sole purpose of a CAAD is to assist in the agreement of compensation where land is compulsorily acquired.
In Rooff Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWCA Civ 435; [2011] PLSCS 110, the appellant’s land was within an area of industrial and commercial development adjoining a freight railway and close to a route proposed for the realignment of a major road. It sought to challenge the decision of an inspector – following an inquiry – to uphold a CAAD issued by the local planning authority that was confined to Class B1 and Class B2 uses. The appellant argued that it should also have extended to Class C3 use. (The inspector had concluded, in particular, that the location of the site sufficiently militated against residential redevelopment.) The main ground of challenge was that the inspector’s reasoning was inadequate and had caused the appellant substantial prejudice.
The Court of Appeal upheld the appellant’s claim. Carnwath LJ, having reviewed the inspector’s decision letter, held that his reasoning – when judged by the South Bucks test – was defective, and that the appellant had thereby been substantially prejudiced. He concluded by saying: “These were all issues raised at the inquiry on which [the appellant was] entitled to have a clear answer. The inspector’s decision does not give it”.
John Martin is a freelance writer