Meritgold Ltd v First Secretary of State & Anor

An application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is concerned with legal or procedural error, not a rehearing of planning merits. The weight given to evidence or to a material consideration is ordinarily for the inspector. A legal challenge may arise where the inspector has failed to consider a material factor altogether. An inspector is entitled to decide which issues are important, to assess the significance of planning evidence, and to reach an evaluative judgment after inspecting the site. The court will not interfere merely because the claimant considers that different weight should have been given to the relevant factors.

Meritgold Ltd challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s dismissal of a planning appeal concerning the retention and alteration of a fourth-floor flat at Foley Court, Finchley.

The inspector concluded that the proposed alterations would not overcome the development’s adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. Meritgold alleged failures to consider evidence, planning history, local support, the proposed modifications and the surrounding street scene, together with inadequate reasons. It also sought an adjournment because of related litigation and planning matters.

1. The application to quash the inspector’s decision was dismissed. The application was an attempt to reargue the planning merits. No error of law or procedure had been established.
2. Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 does not provide an opportunity to rehear the planning arguments. An allegation that an inspector gave too much or too little weight to a factor is not, by itself, an issue of law. The weight attached to evidence and planning considerations is for the inspector.
3. A failure to have regard to a material consideration may raise a legal issue. However, the inspector’s task includes deciding which matters are important. The decision letter showed that the inspector had considered the proposed alterations, the Finchley Society’s supportive comments, the absence of local objections, the earlier appeal, the surrounding street scene, the argument that the flat had become part of that scene, the site’s enforcement history and the characteristics of taller buildings nearby.
4. The inspector was entitled to conclude that the alterations were relatively cosmetic and did not remove the underlying design objection. He was also entitled to attach little weight to the flat’s existing presence in the street scene and to take account of the planning history. Those conclusions were matters of planning judgment, particularly given that the inspector had inspected the site. The court would not substitute its own assessment.
5. The adjournment was refused. No specific prejudice had been demonstrated, the principal defendant had not agreed to a further adjournment, and it was unjust to leave the validity of the decision letter unresolved. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs, summarily assessed at approximately £4,000.