Key Facts
- •Robert Hunter challenged a planning inspector's decision refusing his application for a temporary dwelling on agricultural land.
- •The application was for a 3-year temporary dwelling to house Hunter, a farmer, and his family, to support his expanding cattle herd.
- •Buckinghamshire Council initially failed to determine the application within the statutory period, leading to Hunter's appeal.
- •The appeal was dismissed by the inspector primarily due to concerns about the financial viability of Hunter's business plan.
- •Hunter's judicial review challenge focused on the inspector's assessment of financial viability.
Legal Principles
Judicial review of planning inspector decisions requires a flexible construction of decision letters; reasons must be intelligible and adequate, addressing principal controversial issues.
St Modwen Developments Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2018] PTSR 746 at [6]-[7]
The weight attached to material considerations is the decision-maker's exclusive jurisdiction, not the court's. Merits review is not permitted.
St Modwen Developments Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2018] PTSR 746 at [6]-[7]
Planning policies are interpreted objectively by the court; application of policy is for the decision-maker. Misunderstanding or misapplication of policy constitutes error of law.
St Modwen Developments Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2018] PTSR 746 at [6]-[7]
Section 288 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 allows challenges to the validity of actions of the Secretary of State, requiring leave of the High Court.
Town & Country Planning Act 1990, section 288
Outcomes
The claim was dismissed.
The inspector's conclusion regarding the lack of financial viability was a permissible exercise of judgment based on the evidence. Hunter failed to demonstrate legal error, not simply disagreement with the inspector's assessment of the facts.