Williams, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

On an appeal under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1995, the court may intervene only for an error of law or procedural unfairness. A planning judgment on visual impact, scale, form and character remains for the Inspector unless no reasonable Inspector could have reached it. A typographical error in an appeal decision may be corrected where the Inspector provides reliable evidence of the figure actually used in reaching the decision. An Inspector may consider local precedents but give them little or no weight where the task is to assess the particular development in its specific surroundings.

The claimant appealed under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1995 against an Inspector’s dismissal of his appeal from Hambleton District Council’s refusal of planning permission. The proposal concerned a utility laundry and amended roof to be added to an already approved dwelling.

The claimant challenged the Inspector’s factual calculation of the increase in building volume, his assessment of visual impact and form, the treatment of an earlier planning understanding, and the handling of local planning precedents. The central issues were whether the Inspector had made an error of law, reached an irrational planning judgment, or conducted the appeal unfairly.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Inspector’s decision disclosed no error of law, irrationality or material procedural unfairness.
2. The Inspector’s statement that the approved dwelling was 70 per cent larger than the previous dwelling was a typographical error. The Inspector’s witness statement confirmed that he knew the correct figure was 57 per cent and had based his reasoning on that figure. In the absence of any suggestion or proof that the statement was false, the court proceeded on that basis and treated the error as properly correctable.
3. The Inspector was entitled to regard a 57 per cent increase in volume, compared with a 34 per cent increase achievable through permitted development, as significant.
4. Assessment of visual impact was a planning judgment for the Inspector. The court could not interfere merely because it might disagree; intervention required a decision to which no reasonable Inspector could have come. The Inspector was also entitled to treat the proposed extension as materially different in form, meaning its shape.
5. The written-representation procedure did not cause material unfairness. The claimant had raised the comparison with Ardmore Farm in writing. The Inspector had regard to the matters raised but decided that they did not outweigh the considerations relating to the particular extension, its effect on the approved building and the surrounding area. That approach was lawful.
6. The claimant’s complaint about an earlier understanding with planning officers concerned the preceding planning process and did not itself constitute a sustainable challenge to the Inspector’s decision.
7. Costs were summarily assessed at £2,363.75.

Inspector: dismissed the claimant’s appeal against Hambleton District Council’s refusal of planning permission on 28 November 2002.

High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the statutory appeal under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1995 and summarily assessed costs at £2,363.75.