Wycombe District Council, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

A planning inspector must give proper and intelligible reasons on each principal controversial issue. That duty includes stating whether a proposal complies with the development plan and, if it does not, explaining whether departure from the plan is justified. Policy guidance promoting flexibility and wider housing choice does not displace that duty. It must be considered alongside applicable development-plan policies, including policies concerned with the quality and usability of residential amenity space.

The claimant local planning authority challenged, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an inspector’s decision granting permission for a proposed apartment block. The authority had refused permission partly because the development provided inadequate external amenity space. The inspector treated that issue under “Other Matters”, referring to purchaser choice, wider housing choice under PPG3 and the availability of communal space.

The central issue was whether the inspector had lawfully addressed the development’s compliance with the adopted and emerging local plans and given adequate reasons for his conclusion.

1. Decision quashed. The inspector’s treatment of external amenity space did not lawfully resolve a principal controversial issue.
2. The inspector was entitled to change his view about whether amenity space should be identified as a “main issue” in the decision letter. The label was not decisive. The substance of the issue required proper treatment because compliance with the adopted and emerging plans was directly contested.
3. The inspector failed to make clear whether the proposal complied with the relevant plan policies. He also failed to give intelligible reasons for any finding about compliance. The reference to the proposal being considered “notwithstanding the standards” suggested, at least implicitly, that the development departed from the plan, but the decision did not explain the extent or significance of any departure.
4. Under section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the inspector had to determine whether the proposal accorded with the development plan and, if it did not, undertake the necessary planning judgment as to whether permission should nevertheless be granted. He could not treat the plan’s amenity-space provisions as irrelevant by relying on prospective purchasers’ freedom to choose other accommodation.
5. PPG3 supported flexibility, wider housing choice and efficient use of land, but also supported good design and high-quality residential environments. The inspector was required to consider its relationship with the emerging policies, which had themselves taken PPG3 into account. His approach amounted to inadequate reasoning and, in the alternative, a legal misdirection.
6. The errors substantially prejudiced the authority. The decision made it impossible to know whether section 54A had been properly applied and how the authority’s amenity-space policies should be approached in future cases. The claimant’s costs up to 23 May were payable by the First Secretary of State, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed; later costs were payable by the interested party, summarily assessed at £3,500.