Where the Planning Inspectorate decides that a planning appeal should be dealt with by means of a hearing, a much simpler procedure than that involved at an inquiry is adopted. The inspector, for instance, plays what is essentially an inquisitorial role. The governing rules are the Town and Country Planning (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 (“the Rules”).
At first instance in Vicente v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 1555, objectors had successfully applied to quash the decision by an inspector on appeal – and following a hearing – to grant planning permission for residential development. (That hearing was, in fact, the second one conducted into the appeal by the inspector. The first one had been found to be flawed as a result of the local planning authority failing to give notification of the hearing to the objectors under rule 7(5) of the Rules.) The objectors contended that the inspector had taken account of the evidence and argument that he had heard at the first hearing, and they had not been apprised of it – or, alternatively, given a reasonable opportunity to deal with it if they were
The court at first instance held that there was an appearance of unfairness, and actual unfairness, in the way that the second hearing had progressed, pointing out in particular that the objectors had been entitled to be heard. The judge, accordingly, quashed the planning permission. The Secretary of State and the developer appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing in particular that the judge had fallen into error by equating the position of the objectors with that of formal parties to an inquiry, rather than attendees at a hearing.
The appeal judges allowed the appeal, and set aside the order made by the judge. They concluded that, on the basis of the evidence, he had erred in accepting the objectors’ contentions. There had been no procedural unfairness. But they also went on to state that, since the hearing was not an “inquiry” and the objectors were not “parties” to it, the objectors were not strictly “entitled to be heard”. This was because their participation at the inquiry was at the discretion of the inspector. That said, in practical terms objectors of this nature would always be given an opportunity to be heard at a hearing.
John Martin is a planning law consultant
