Planning appeal — Written representations procedure — Whether inspector obliged to enquire whether further evidence existing that could strengthen claimant’s case — Whether inspector entitled to reach decision on material before him — Claim dismissed
The claimant appealed to the first defendant Secretary of State against a refusal by the second defendants to grant planning permission for the temporary retention of a mobile home and hardstanding on land within the metropolitan green belt. The appeal was conducted under the written representations procedure. In her submissions, the claimant relied upon the personal circumstances of her family, including her own health problems and her daughter’s educational needs. She argued that these amounted to very special circumstances justifying the inappropriate development in the green belt. The inspector disagreed and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
The claimant challenged that decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. She contended that, inter alia: (i) the inspector should have enquired further of the parties as to whether the claimant’s case might be strengthened by further evidence or information that had not been drawn to his attention; and (ii) if the effect of the written representations procedure was to relieve the inspector of that inquisitorial function, the procedure was, in the circumstances of the case, incompatible with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The general rule was that it was incumbent upon the parties to a planning appeal to place before the inspector the material upon which they relied. Where the written representations procedure was used, they were obliged to produce such material as part of their written representations. An inspector was entitled to reach a decision on the basis of the material that had been put before him or her: Patel v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2002] EWHC 1963 (Admin); [2003] JPL 342, E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49; [2004] QB 1044 and Dyason v Secretary of State for the Environment [1998] 2 PLR 54 applied. There was nothing inherently unfair in the operation of that general rule. Exceptional cases could occur where, on the particular facts, fairness would require the inspector to do something more, for example by requesting further information or by departing from the written procedure and holding an oral hearing. However, nothing in the circumstances of the present case called for a departure from the general rule: R (on the application of Singh) v First Secretary of State [2004] EWHC 2366 (Admin) distinguished. The inspector had carried out an ordinary process of evaluation and weighing. No special factor arose that made it unfair for him to proceed on the basis of the material before him.
It had not been shown that the written representations procedure was incompatible in any way with Article 6. If the ordinary rules of procedural fairness did not require the inspector to make further enquiry of the parties, then no such requirement could be derived from Article 6.
Kevin Leigh (instructed by Palmers, of Basildon) appeared for the claimant; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants, Rochford District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Sally Dobson, barrister
