Cottle, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

An application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 cannot be used to challenge the planning merits of an inspector’s decision. The court’s jurisdiction is limited to cases where the decision is not in accordance with the Act or where proper procedural requirements were not followed and substantial prejudice resulted. An allegation of bias must be expressly made against the decision-maker and supported by evidence. Inconsistent decisions by another planning authority do not, without more, establish unfairness or bias by the inspector.

The claimant sought under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s dismissal of his appeal against the refusal by Bath and North East Somerset Council of planning permission for an extension to a loft conversion. The inspector had concluded that the proposed design was unacceptable.

The claimant relied on alleged unfairness arising from the council’s treatment of similar dormer-extension proposals. The issue was whether that circumstance provided a lawful basis for the Administrative Court to interfere with the inspector’s decision.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court had no basis to interfere with the inspector’s decision.
2. The jurisdiction under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is confined to cases where the inspector’s decision is not in accordance with the Act, or where proper procedural requirements were not followed and the claimant was substantially prejudiced.
3. The claimant’s grievance arose from the council’s decisions in other cases. Even if those decisions were inconsistent with the inspector’s conclusion, they did not constitute evidence that the inspector had acted unfairly or improperly.
4. Bias could fall within the statutory grounds of challenge, but an allegation capable of supporting intervention had to be expressly stated against the decision-maker and supported by evidence. No such allegation or evidence was presented.
5. The claimant had misunderstood the nature of the court’s statutory jurisdiction by seeking review of the planning decision itself. The first defendant’s costs were assessed at £2,000, payable by the claimant.