Appeal against enforcement notice – Inspector refusing district council adjournment to call witness at public inquiry – Inspector quashing enforcement notice – District council appealing – Judge finding inspector omitting principal evidence and allowing council’s appeal – Secretary of State appealing – Whether inspector adopting correct approach towards evidence – Appeal allowed
In January 1996 the district council served an enforcement notice on Mr Cadwell. A public inquiry was held following Mr Cadwell’s appeal against the notice. At the inquiry the council requested an adjournment to enable them to call an environmental health officer (Mrs Ray) as a witness, to deal with a principal matter in dispute, namely the impact of noise. The inspector refused to adjourn and accepted Mrs Ray’s evidence as contained in her proof of evidence. The inspector found that neither side were prejudiced by her absence. In his decision letter of 6 May 1997, the inspector quashed the enforcement notice and granted Mr Cadwell conditional planning permission for the use of the site in question as a private access way, part domestic curtilage and for the business of repairing motor vehicles. The district council appealed. The judge found that the inspector had not expressly referred to Mrs Ray’s evidence in his decision letter and concluded that the inspector had therefore not taken it into account. The judge held that the omission of crucial evidence was an error of law. The council’s appeal was allowed. The Secretary of State appealed on the ground that the judge had erred by attaching disproportionate significance to the inspector’s failure to expressly refer to Mrs Ray’s evidence in his decision letter. It was submitted by the Secretary of State that the inspector had had proper regard to Mrs Ray’s evidence and to the assertions of statutory nuisance.
Held The appeal was allowed.
It was not open for the council to contend that the inspector had ignored the evidence of Mrs Ray. Mrs Ray’s evidence formed only part of a substantial body of evidence before the inspector. It was clear from his decision letter that the inspector had not ignored any relevant considerations contained in her evidence. The weight to be attached to such evidence was a matter for the inspector: Edinburgh City Council v Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] 1 WLR 1447 and Bolton Metropolitan District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 3 PLR 37 applied. There was no reason to conclude that the decision should be or was vitiated by the way in which the inspector dealt with the issues or conducted the inquiry.
John Litton (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the appellant; Anthony Crean (instructed by the solicitor to West Lancashire District Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
