Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2548 (Admin)
Protect Dunsfold Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
20 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1854 (Admin)
High Court
Someone wanted to explore for gas near a protected area. The government said yes. People challenged the decision, saying the protected area wasn't considered enough and that the decision was unfair because a similar case was handled differently. The judge disagreed, saying the protected area *was* considered and the cases were different enough.
Key Facts
- •Protect Dunsfold Ltd and Waverley Borough Council challenged the Secretary of State's decision to grant planning permission for hydrocarbon exploration at Dunsfold, Surrey.
- •The proposed development involved drilling boreholes and constructing a well site, with a temporary duration of three years.
- •The site is in an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and within the setting of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
- •Surrey County Council initially refused permission, citing highway and landscape concerns.
- •UKOG appealed the refusal, and the appeal was allowed by the Secretary of State.
- •The claimants argued that the decision failed to give great weight to the harm to the AONB and was inconsistent with a similar decision in Ellesmere Port.
Legal Principles
Section 288 appeals against planning decisions are to be construed flexibly; reasons must be intelligible and adequate; weight given to material considerations is for the decision-maker; planning policies are interpreted objectively; consistency in decision-making is important but not absolute.
St Modwen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Courts should respect the expertise of planning inspectors and presume they understood the policy framework correctly.
Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs (National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 176).
National Planning Policy Framework
Previous planning decisions can be material considerations; consistency is important but not absolute; the court assesses whether a reasonable decision-maker would have considered a previous decision in the circumstances.
Baroness Cumberlege of Newick v DLA Delivery Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment
Outcomes
Claims dismissed.
The Inspector and Secretary of State's reasoning did not show a misunderstanding of the law; the AONB harm was given weight in the overall balance, and the Ellesmere Port decision was not sufficiently similar to be a mandatory consideration.
Similar Cases
Sarah Moakes v Canterbury City Council
[2024] EWHC 1272 (Admin)
Cindy Jones, R (on the application of) v Cornwall Council
[2024] EWHC 2198 (Admin)
Ardleigh Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Tendring District Council
[2024] EWHC 648 (Admin)
Whitley Parish Council, R (on the application of) v North Yorkshire County Council & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 92