Planning permission — Inspector finding in favour of development — First instance appeal by planning authority successful — Judge holding that inspector misinterpreted policy — Whether justifiable ground for overturning inspector’s decision — Whether policy considerations matter of planning or of law — Whether judge substituting his own opinion for that of inspector — Whether combination of errors could lead to error in law — Developers’ appeal allowed
David Wilson Homes (Southern) Ltd applied to South Somerset District Council for outline planning permission for residential development of 1.2 ha of land west of North Street, Martock, Somerset. Another application was then made by the developers for the development of a larger 2.8-ha site, which included within its area the site of the first application. When no determination was made, the developers appealed to the Secretary of State.
An inspector heard the appeals and granted planning permission subject to conditions. He identified, inter alia, a main issue as being whether the fact that the sites lay beyond the defined settlement boundary in the emerging local plan was of such importance as a policy consideration that it would outweigh all other factors in favour of development. On appeal to the High Court, the council criticised the manner in which the inspector applied the local statutory plans and alleged a failure to take into account aspects of the plans, as well as a failure to give appropriate weight to certain local plan provisions.
The judge found that the inspector had considerable latitude in forming the requisite planning judgments needed to decide the appeals and that minor errors could not usually be taken to be errors in law. There came a point, however, when a mistaken assessment could constitute an error in law, or the combination of errors could be seen to be such that an inspector might well have reached a different decision had the true position been clear to him. Several of the weaknesses in the decision might have been of limited importance if they had stood on their own. However, taken together they led to the conclusion that the inspector was left with a general misapprehension of the true effect of the policies overall. “These policies were material to the inspector’s decision. They are all of them important but together they have a significance which, if properly considered, could well lead to a different conclusion.”
The developers appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that a High Court decision should only interfere with a decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment where he: (a) acted upon no evidence; (b) came to a conclusion to which upon the evidence he could not reasonably have come; (c) misinterpreted a statute; (d) took into matters which he ought not to have considered; (e) erred on a point of law: see Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1965] 1 WLR 1320. Also, the developers argued, the inspector had been provided with all the relevant information relating to the structure plan and the local plan, the weight to be attached to policy and the correct interpretation thereof. The fact that the judge, the Secretary of State, or another inspector, might have concluded differently in respect of the weight to be given to policy or its interpretation was irrelevant provided a reasonable inspector could have decided as he did. Further, interpretations of policy related to planning and not to law and were thus the exclusive domain of the inspector.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. An analysis of the inspector’s decision letter showed that the inspector had not misunderstood the policies. On the contrary, he had them well in mind.
2. He made a careful assessment of the evidence and his reasons were adequate and intelligible and showed a full appreciation of policy matters by which he was to be guided.
3. The judge was not entitled to substitute his opinion for the inspector’s planning judgment.
Jonathan Fulthorpe (instructed by Clarke Willmott & Clarke, of Bristol) appeared for the developers; Jeremy Sullivan QC (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard acting as London agents for the solicitor to South Somerset District Council) appeared for the planning authority.
