Paterson, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State

A planning policy is interpreted initially by the decision-maker. The court may intervene only where the adopted meaning is one the policy is not reasonably capable of bearing. A spacing standard directed to privacy and spacing between buildings need not regulate internal arrangements within a single dwelling. An inspector need state conclusions on principal, important and controversial issues, but need not address every subsidiary point expressly. In planning cases, the adequacy of the material available and the need for further information are matters for the inspector’s judgment. A challenge based on planning judgment faces a particularly high threshold, especially where the inspector has considered plans, representations and the results of a site inspection.

The claimant applied under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 288, to quash an inspector’s decision allowing Wexford Resources’ appeal against the London Borough of Hounslow’s refusal of planning permission for four town houses and ancillary works.

The challenge concerned the interpretation of a 21-metre privacy standard, the inspector’s treatment of supplementary planning guidance on safe and secure design, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conclusions on outlook, open aspect and neighbouring amenity. The central issues were whether the inspector had adopted an impermissible interpretation, failed to address a material issue, or reached an unreasonable planning judgment.

1. The application was dismissed. The inspector’s decision granting planning permission was not quashed. The claimant was ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs, summarily assessed at £4,775.

2. The 21-metre standard in Appendix 2 to the adopted Unitary Development Plan was reasonably interpreted as applying to spacing between neighbouring dwellings, rather than to facing windows within the same dwelling. The heading, the general thrust of the policy, the reference to neighbouring rooms or gardens elsewhere in the appendix, and the implausibility of applying a 21-metre rule to ordinary internal layouts supported that interpretation. At the least, the policy was unclear and open to the inspector’s construction.

3. The inspector therefore properly treated the potential views between bedrooms within each proposed dwelling as a separate residential-amenity issue. His reasons for finding the arrangement acceptable were adequate when read on that basis.

4. The inspector was required to state conclusions on principal, important and controversial issues, but not every subsidiary point. The specific design concern arising under paragraph 2.3(3) of the supplementary planning guidance was encompassed within his conclusions on design and residential amenity. His failure to mention it expressly did not establish that he had failed to take it into account. This approach was consistent with Bolton MDC v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 3 PLR 37.

5. Whether the decision-maker has sufficient material to determine a planning issue is itself a matter of judgment. The inspector had plans, scaled sections, written representations, hearing material and the benefit of a site inspection, including the claimant’s property. In that context, the challenge to his conclusion on outlook and open aspect could not satisfy the demanding Wednesbury threshold applicable to planning judgments, as explained in Newsmith Stainless Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 74.

First-instance judicial review application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The challenged inspector’s decision had allowed Wexford Resources’ planning appeal and granted permission.