Ashton, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Ors

A planning inspector must address a principal and genuinely controversial issue capable of affecting the outcome. Failing to consider such an issue, or failing to give reasons for resolving it, is an error of law. The duty to give reasons does not require an answer to every argument, but it does require conclusions on substantial points that might lead to a different decision. A court should refuse relief for an error of law only in exceptional circumstances where the decision would necessarily have been the same. It must not substitute its own judgment on matters committed to the decision-maker.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the First Secretary of State’s decision, made through an inspector, allowing planning permission for a residential development in Wolverhampton.

The claimant argued that the inspector had failed to address two highway-safety issues: the appropriate X distance for visibility splays and the spacing between nearby junctions. The inspector had treated the X distance as 2.4 metres without addressing the competing case for 4.5 metres, and had not dealt with junction spacing. The central issues were whether those matters were material and whether relief should nevertheless be refused because the outcome would necessarily have been unchanged.

1. The application was granted and the inspector’s decision was quashed. Highway safety was one of the three main issues identified in the decision letter. The competing evidence on visibility splays and junction spacing therefore concerned substantial and potentially determinative matters.

2. The inspector failed to take into account the dispute over whether the X distance should be 2.4 or 4.5 metres. Although he dealt with the Y distance, he simply adopted 2.4 metres without addressing the conflicting guidance or evidence. If he had considered the issue, he failed to give reasons for preferring 2.4 metres.

3. The inspector also failed to deal with the junction-spacing issue and the alleged risk from vehicles hooking around nearby accesses. That issue was less prominent than the X-distance issue, but it was not trivial or immaterial.

4. The duty to give reasons requires the decision-maker to address principal important controversial issues, but not every peripheral argument or material consideration. The fact that the local planning authority accepted the 2.4-metre distance did not relieve the inspector of the duty to resolve the dispute raised by the objectors.

5. The court declined to refuse relief notwithstanding the error of law. It was possible that the inspector would reach the same conclusion, particularly on the published guidance, but it could not be said that he would necessarily do so. Refusing relief would have involved substituting the court’s judgment for that of the inspector. The first defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, reduced by 15 per cent to reflect an abandoned ground.

This was a first-instance application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The challenged decision was made by the First Secretary of State through a planning inspector following a public inquiry. The application was granted and the decision was quashed.