Stanford v First Secretary of State & Anor

A challenge under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 288, examines legality rather than the planning merits. The court must identify a specific error of law or establish that the decision was irrational or perverse, in the sense that no reasonable inspector could have reached it. Planning judgments involving matters such as countryside character, sustainability, visibility and local geography are primarily for the inspector. Previously developed land may still be in the open countryside. A previous inspector’s decision must be taken into account where relevant, but it is not a binding precedent and cannot fetter the judgment of a future decision-maker. The claim was dismissed because the inspector’s reasoning disclosed no legal error, irrationality, bias or predetermination.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision dated 8 December 2003. The inspector had dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the failure of Herefordshire Council to determine an outline planning application for specialist accommodation for people over 55 at the Graftonbury Garden Hotel.

The inspector concluded that the site was in the open countryside, that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, that the location was unsustainable, and that the claimed need did not outweigh the relevant policy objections. The central issue was whether those conclusions involved an error of law or irrationality capable of being reviewed by the court.

1. The claim was dismissed. Section 288 provides a challenge on legal grounds. It is not an appeal on the planning merits, and the court must not substitute its own judgment for that of the inspector.
2. The claimant had to identify a specific legal error or show that the inspector’s decision was irrational or perverse. It was insufficient that another inspector might have reached a different conclusion.
3. The inspector was entitled to treat the Local Plan’s omission of Grafton from its list of small settlements as decisive on that issue. Whether the site was in the open countryside was an essentially qualitative planning judgment. Previously developed land could still be in the open countryside, and there was no material error in treating “countryside” and “open countryside” as indistinguishable for the relevant policies.
4. The inspector was entitled to assess the effect of the proposed development on the balance between the hotel buildings, trees and surrounding landscape. His observations about development beyond the hotel’s built footprint did not determine future applications. A previous planning decision may need to be considered, but it is not a binding precedent and cannot fetter a future inspector’s or planning authority’s independent judgment.
5. The conclusions on sustainability, the separation of the site from Hereford by countryside, visibility and the area’s physical character were matters of planning judgment. The court was not in a comparable position to the inspector, particularly without the benefit of the site visit, and found no basis for intervention. The decision was not shown to be legally defective, biased or predetermined.
6. The claimant was ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs, summarily assessed at £5,400.

The judgment concerned a first-instance claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 challenging an inspector’s decision. The inspector had dismissed the claimant’s planning appeal following the local planning authority’s failure to determine the application.