Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides the sole means of challenging the validity of a decision by the Secretary of State, or his inspector, on a planning appeal. Where the ground of challenge is that there has been a failure to comply with “the relevant requirements” in relation to the decision, section 288(5) requires the claimant to show that its interests have thereby been substantially prejudiced.
One such requirement will always be the statutory duty to give reasons for the decision. Where, for instance, the planning appeal has been dealt with by means of a hearing, the duty to give reasons arises under Rule 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Hearings Procedure) Rules 2000. Relevant jurisprudence can be summarised briefly by stating that the reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be 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 issues. They should enable a disappointed developer, for example, to assess its prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission.
In Proudfoot Properties v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWHC 2043 (Admin); [2012] PLSCS 173 an inspector, following a hearing, dismissed the claimants appeal against the refusal of the local planning authority (LPA) to grant planning permission for residential development on its land. The sole ground of challenge was that the inspector had failed to give adequate reasons for his conclusions on two specific issues, namely the claimant’s personal circumstances and the claimant’s rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. The facts the claimant alleged in support were that it had undertaken with the LPA to cease using its land for intensive pig-rearing as part of a deal whereby the LPA had agreed to permit an alternative development on the land, the LPA had failed to do this, there had been accordingly a breach of its Article 1 rights and it had suffered economic loss as a consequence.
The court allowed the claim, holding that while the inspector had given reasons for his conclusions on what clearly were two important issues in the appeal, they were not adequate. This caused the claimant substantial prejudice both in the context of a legal challenge and in relation to future applications for planning permission in respect of the land.
John Martin
