A helper gave advice to the person making the final decision in a planning appeal. A judge said this was unfair, but a higher court said it was fine because the main person still made their own decision using all the information, including the helper's advice. The higher court also said it didn't matter if the helper wasn't super experienced.
Key Facts
- •Stephen Smith appealed a refusal of planning permission for an illuminated advertisement.
- •An appeal planning officer (APO), Ms Long, assisted the planning inspector, Mr Taylor.
- •Ms Long conducted a site visit, reviewed documents, and provided a reasoned recommendation to dismiss the appeal based on visual amenity.
- •The inspector adopted Ms Long's recommendation and dismissed the appeal.
- •Mr Smith challenged the decision, arguing the process was unfair due to Ms Long's involvement.
- •The High Court judge found the process unfair because Ms Long, deemed underqualified, made an evaluative planning judgment.
Legal Principles
A decision-maker can be assisted in reaching a decision, but the process must be fair and provide necessary materials.
R (Reckless) v Kent Policy Authority [2010] EWCA Civ 1277
Procedural fairness does not automatically require disclosure of an internal officer's recommendation to parties.
This case
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State's appeal.
The inspector, not the APO, made the final decision after considering all evidence, including the APO's recommendation. The Court found no procedural unfairness in the APO providing a reasoned recommendation as part of the internal decision-making process. The APO's qualifications were not a matter for the court to determine.