Stilwell v First Secretary of State

In a planning challenge under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an inspector is entitled to rely on the effective operation of other statutory regulatory regimes, absent evidence that those regimes are failing. That reliance does not require certainty that no harmful incident will occur. Fear and apprehension may be material planning considerations even where shown to be unjustified, but their weight is a matter for the inspector’s planning judgment. A decision letter must be read as a whole. The inspector need address the principal issues, but need not spell out every step or repeat matters already explained.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision granting planning permission for the conversion of part of an elderly residential care unit into additional acute psychiatric care accommodation. The challenge concerned the interpretation of development plan policies, the treatment of residents’ fear and apprehension, reliance on the National Care Standards Commission’s regulatory controls, amenity space, planning conditions, and the adequacy of the inspector’s reasons.

The central issue was whether the inspector had made an error of law in granting permission subject to conditions.

1. The application was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £6,435, exclusive of VAT.
2. Policy GCS1 had to be read with the explanatory material in the development plan. It did not require every Class C2 proposal to serve the particular residential area in which it was located. The requirement applied wherever that was practical. The inspector was entitled to conclude that a psychiatric unit serving a wide geographical catchment could not practically be located in a residential area intended to be served.
3. The inspector was entitled to treat policy GCS1 as applicable to the proposal. Psychiatric patients were plainly persons in need of care, whether the ordinary meaning of those words or the definition of care in article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 was used.
4. The inspector did not unlawfully rely on the continuation of the existing admission exclusions. For future operation, he relied on the regulatory role of the National Care Standards Commission. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, he was entitled to proceed on the basis that the statutory regulatory regime would operate effectively.
5. That approach did not require an assurance that incidents would never occur. The planning system does not require development to proceed only where harm can be guaranteed never to occur. Fear and apprehension remained material considerations, including fears shown to be unjustified, but the weight given to them was for the inspector’s planning judgment. The inspector had considered the incidents, the regulatory regime, the evidence of past operation, and the need for psychiatric accommodation.
6. Condition 5 adequately restricted the use to a psychiatric care unit with a maximum of 46 beds, comprising 11 intensive-care and 35 acute-care beds, and prevented subdivision. The inspector was entitled to see no planning purpose in prescribing which floors should contain particular categories of beds or in imposing conditions governing clinical admission judgments.
7. The decision letter, read as a whole, gave adequate reasons. The inspector was required to address the principal points in contention, not every issue raised or every obvious intermediate step. His conclusions on amenity space, living conditions, highway safety and sustainability were reasonably open to him.

The judgment describes a challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to an inspector’s decision letter dated 1 May 2003. The Administrative Court dismissed the challenge.