Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)
Bedford Park Developments v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
12 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2337 (Admin)
High Court
A developer lost a court case challenging a planning decision to reject their housing project. The judge ruled the decision was fair and well-reasoned. The planner considered all important information, including a similar approved project nearby, and properly weighed the different points to make a decision.
Key Facts
- •Claim for statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
- •Claimant sought quashing of a Decision Letter (DL) dismissing their planning appeal for 68 residential units.
- •Appeal refusal based on unacceptable landscape and visual harm, impacting the South Downs National Park (SDNP).
- •Appeal initially set for a public inquiry, then changed to a hearing.
- •A Statement of Common Ground (SCG) was agreed between the Claimant and the Council before the hearing.
- •A subsequent appeal decision (Croudace Decision) for a nearby site was considered a material consideration.
- •Claim brought on four grounds: procedural unfairness, inconsistency, irrationality, and inadequate reasoning.
- •Inspector's witness statement was partially redacted before the hearing.
- •The Croudace appeal, for a nearby site, granted permission for 100 residential dwellings and significantly influenced the decision of the present appeal
Legal Principles
Decisions of the Secretary of State and inspectors are construed flexibly; they needn't rehearse every argument.
Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [2014] EWHC 754 (Admin)
Policy interpretation is a matter of law; policy application is planning judgment.
Tesco Stores v Dundee CC [2012] UKSC 13
Procedural fairness principles in planning appeals (knowing the case, opportunity to present evidence, material prejudice).
Hopkins Developments Ltd v SSCLG [2014] EWCA Civ 470
Inspectors must consider third-party representations, but departing from SCG may require adjournments for proper response.
R.(oao Poole) v SSCLG [2008] EWHC 676 (Admin)
Previous appeal decisions are material considerations; consistency is important, but inspectors exercise independent judgment.
North Wiltshire DC v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 65 P. & CR 137 and R (Davison) v Elmbridge Borough Council [2019] EWHC 1409 (Admin)
Reasons challenges require intelligible and adequate reasons; substantial prejudice must be shown for success.
South Buckinghamshire CC v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953 and Elmbridge
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The court found no procedural unfairness, inconsistency, irrationality, or inadequate reasoning in the Inspector's decision. The Inspector properly considered the SCG, the Croudace Decision (as a material consideration), and all relevant evidence. The weight given to various factors was within the Inspector's planning judgment. The Inspector adequately addressed the claimant's arguments, and the judge found no substantial prejudice to the claimant.
Similar Cases
Mid Suffolk District Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 930 (Admin)
Seedlings Property Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3371 (Admin)
Elizabeth Soilleux v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities
[2023] EWHC 204 (Admin)
Malcom Jeffrey Barrett v The Welsh Ministers
[2023] EWHC 2503 (Admin)