Grant-Nicholas, R (on the application of) v Bromsgrove District Council

A local planning authority considering an independent inspector’s report must address the substantial points raised and explain why it disagrees with the inspector’s recommendation. Mere repetition of the authority’s earlier position is inadequate where the inspector has made material findings requiring a response. The adequacy of reasons is fact-specific and depends on the issues raised in the particular case. Reasons may be brief where the issue is one of planning judgment, but factual findings and substantial points must be grappled with expressly. The court reviews compliance with statutory and public-law requirements, not the planning merits.

The claimant challenged, under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the designation of her land as an Area of Development Restraint and its exclusion from the Green Belt in the Bromsgrove District Local Plan.

An independent inspector had recommended that the land be designated as an Area of Development Restraint, finding that development would have little effect on the Green Belt and that the site was highly sustainable. Bromsgrove District Council rejected that recommendation, relying substantially on its earlier concerns. The central issues were whether the Council had properly considered the inspector’s report and whether it had given adequate reasons for rejecting the recommendation.

1. Claim allowed. The relevant part of the Bromsgrove District Local Plan was quashed.
2. Under paragraph 27(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) (England) Regulations 1999, the authority was required to consider the inspector’s report and recommendation and prepare a statement of recommendations. That duty required genuine consideration of the inspector’s reasoning.
3. The adequacy of reasons was fact-specific. The court was concerned with compliance with statutory and public-law requirements, not with substituting its view on planning merits. The question was whether full and sufficient reasons had been given for this site, not whether the reasons were as extensive as those given for other sites.
4. The principles stated in Miller and Others v Wycombe District Council [1997] J.P.L. 955 required the authority to demonstrate that it had applied its mind to the inspector’s report, recommendation and findings. The principles summarised from Welsh Development Agency v Carmarthenshire County Council [2000] J.P.L. 692 recognised that reasons could sometimes be brief, but that mere repetition of the authority’s previous stance was inadequate where the inspector raised a point requiring consideration.
5. The inspector had made material findings of fact concerning Green Belt separation, encroachment and sustainability. Those findings required an equally careful response. The Council’s reasons merely repeated its earlier concerns and did not grapple with the inspector’s detailed recommendation. A later response could not cure the deficiency because the reasons had to be considered as at the time of the decision.
6. Permission to appeal was refused. The proposed appeal had no prospect of success.