Planning inquiry–Inspector under no duty to act as an advocate in the interests of a party appearing in person–Application to set aside Secretary of State’s decision ‘entirely misconceived’
This was an
application by Mr Reginald Snow, of 171 Bull Lane, Rayleigh, Essex, seeking to
have quashed a decision of the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the
Environment, dated June 27 1975, refusing planning permission for residential
development of 24.2 acres of land off Bull Lane owned by the appellant.
Mr R J
Coventry (instructed by Bingham & Co) appeared for the applicant, and Mr H
K Woolf (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) represented the Secretary of
State. Two other named respondents, Rochford District Council and George Wimpey
& Co Ltd, took no part in the proceedings.
Mr Coventry
said that the refusal complained of followed a public inquiry in April 1975
into two appeals by George Wimpey & Co against the refusal of the former
Rayleigh Urban District Council to permit the development. In their statement
of their reasons for refusal, the council said that the site was intended to
form part of the metropolitan green belt. Mr Snow alleged that his interests
had been substantially prejudiced because he was not permitted to call all the
evidence or conduct all the cross-examination he wished. The Secretary of State
therefore did not have all the relevant evidence upon which to base his
decision.
The inspector,
Mr William Denis Charnley BA, a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute,
said in an affidavit that Mr Snow was given every opportunity to place before
him any evidence or arguments which he wished to advance, and in accordance
with his normal practice when someone was not represented he gave Mr Snow an
opportunity to question all witnesses. The position was that Mr Snow had
difficulty in framing questions.
Giving
judgment, MR FRANK said that in the summary of the case for Wimpeys in the
inspector’s report it was conceded that there was a 10-years’ supply of
building land in the Rochford district. That alone would justify the Secretary
of State in holding, as he did, that there was a considerable amount of land
available for housing and that it would be wrong to permit the proposed
development. Even if Mr Snow did not get all the answers which he sought from
the planning authority, he (his Lordship) could not see how he was prejudiced
as a result. Mr Coventry’s argument amounted to this, that if Mr Snow’s case
involved putting questions then the inspector was under a duty to formulate
them for him. Even if it were the case that Mr Snow sought to ask questions,
there was no duty upon the inspector to put himself in the position of an
advocate for one of the parties, though like a judge he would help someone who
was not represented. There was no ground for saying that there had been any
failure to comply with the rules, even less that the applicant had been
substantially prejudiced. The application was entirely misconceived, and must
be dismissed with costs.
