Mann LJ, in North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 3 PLR 113, stated that one important reason why previous appeal decisions are capable of being material, 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 approach also tends secure public confidence in the operation of the development control system.
But it does not mean that like cases must be decided alike. The later 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 is so whether the decisions relate to the same appeal site, or to two different ones.
In Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 597 (Admin); [2013] PLSCS 88 the crucial issue in an appeal against the non-determination of a planning application for residential development was whether or not there was a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing, with the appropriate buffer, as required in paragraph 47 of the NPPF. The inspector concluded that a five-year housing supply had been shown, and he dismissed the appeal. In reaching that conclusion, the inspector included in his calculation the strategic sites identified in the local planning authority’s draft core strategy.
The claimant sought to quash the inspector’s decision, contending principally that in two later appeal decisions brought to the inspector’s attention, after the inquiry but before he reached his decision, it had been decided in similar circumstances that strategic sites should be excluded from consideration of the supply of deliverable sites.
The court allowed the claim, and quashed the inspector’s decision. It held that the inspector had failed properly to exercise his discretion in deciding whether or not to admit the two later decisions for consideration. The reason given by him, namely that they were submitted too late to be considered, was unsustainable. He had failed to give adequate reasons for not taking them into account.
John Martin
PP 2013/57 The decision in an earlier planning appeal is capable of being a material consideration, albeit that the decision maker in the later planning appeal may depart from it provided that he gives reasons.
Mann LJ, in North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 3 PLR 113, stated that one important reason why previous appeal decisions are capable of being material, 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 approach also tends secure public confidence in the operation of the development control system. But it does not mean that like cases must be decided alike. The later 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 is so whether the decisions relate to the same appeal site, or to two different ones. In Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 597 (Admin); [2013] PLSCS 88 the crucial issue in an appeal against the non-determination of a planning application for residential development was whether or not there was a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing, with the appropriate buffer, as required in paragraph 47 of the NPPF. The inspector concluded that a five-year housing supply had been shown, and he dismissed the appeal. In reaching that conclusion, the inspector included in his calculation the strategic sites identified in the local planning authority’s draft core strategy. The claimant sought to quash the inspector’s decision, contending principally that in two later appeal decisions brought to the inspector’s attention, after the inquiry but before he reached his decision, it had been decided in similar circumstances that strategic sites should be excluded from consideration of the supply of deliverable sites. The court allowed the claim, and quashed the inspector’s decision. It held that the inspector had failed properly to exercise his discretion in deciding whether or not to admit the two later decisions for consideration. The reason given by him, namely that they were submitted too late to be considered, was unsustainable. He had failed to give adequate reasons for not taking them into account. John Martin
