Jewson Holdings Ltd., R (on the application of) v Vale of the White Horse District Council

In a challenge to a planning inspector’s decision, the court must determine whether planning policy language is capable of bearing the meaning adopted by the decision-maker, while leaving matters of planning judgment to the decision-maker. Reasons must be proper, adequate and intelligible and address the substantial points and main issues, but need not deal with every material matter in detail. In enabling-development cases, full market testing and exploration of alternative development strategies may be treated as preconditions before detailed financial appraisal becomes decisive. A proposal must be shown to be the minimum development necessary to secure the heritage asset’s repair and long-term future. Failure to satisfy those requirements may independently defeat the claim, without detailed consideration of financial minutiae.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision dismissing its appeal under section 78 against refusal of planning permission. The proposed development involved new office buildings and demolition of barns at a Grade II listed site in the Green Belt. The claimant relied on enabling development to fund the repair and long-term preservation of the listed buildings.

The claimant alleged that the inspector had failed to take account of English Heritage’s policy guidance and had given inadequate reasons for concluding that the proposed development was not the minimum necessary. The central issues were whether the inspector had misunderstood or failed to apply the guidance and whether his reasons lawfully explained the conclusion reached.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs, summarily assessed at £4,663.50.
2. Under sections 70(2) and 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the inspector had to consider the development plan and other material considerations and determine the application in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The court’s role was supervisory. It could determine the legal meaning which planning-policy words were capable of bearing, but could not substitute its own planning judgment.
3. The inspector was entitled to treat the English Heritage policy statement and practical guide as an important material consideration. He was entitled to conclude that the absence of full market testing meant that the case for enabling development had not been made out. That was sufficient to dispose of the appeal.
4. The inspector also gave independently sufficient reasons. The claimant had not shown that it had explored a range of development strategies, including repair and a beneficial low-key use of the barns without enabling development. Nor had it demonstrated that the proposed amount of development was the minimum necessary to secure repair and the buildings’ long-term future.
5. Financial considerations were fundamental in principle to enabling-development decisions, but the inspector was not required to examine their detailed minutiae after finding that other essential criteria had not been satisfied. The policy itself contemplated enabling development only if its other criteria were met and only to the extent necessary to cover the conservation deficit.
6. Reasons must be proper, adequate and intelligible and address the substantial points and main issues. Even if the reasoning on the later points had been insufficient, the claimant would have suffered no sufficient or substantial prejudice because the claim failed on the market-testing ground.

Not stated in the judgment.