Next Group Plc v First Secretary of State

In a planning decision, an inspector must address the principal important controversial issues, but need not answer every detailed submission or give reasons for reasons. The adequacy of reasons is assessed in the context of the decision as a whole and by asking whether any deficiency substantially prejudiced the recipient. An apparently acceptable proposal may properly be refused where its cumulative effect, together with similar future proposals, would undermine adopted or emerging planning policies. Each later application must still be considered on its own merits, but that does not prevent cumulative precedent from being a material planning consideration.

The claimant applied under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 288, to quash an inspector’s decision refusing permission for a 1,000 square metre mezzanine floor at its retail store in the Serpentine Green Shopping Centre, Peterborough.

The inspector considered the proposal’s effect on the role and function of Peterborough city centre. He concluded that permission could make similar mezzanine proposals difficult to resist and that their cumulative effect might substantially increase the centre’s retail floor space and threaten the city centre’s viability. The claimant alleged inadequate reasoning, principally because the inspector had not expressly addressed the need to determine each future application on its own merits.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £5,984.
2. The inspector was required to address the principal important controversial issues, applying the approach identified by Lord Brown in South Buckinghamshire District Council and another v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33. He was not required to mention every detailed point raised at the inquiry.
3. The inspector adequately addressed the central issue: the effect of the proposal on the role and function of the city centre in the light of the relevant planning policies. He recognised that the individual proposal might be relatively small and that future proposals would arise separately, but was entitled to consider their possible cumulative effect over time.
4. The obligation to determine each later application on its own merits did not prevent the prospect of similar applications, and the difficulty of resisting them incrementally, from being a material consideration. The inspector was not required to rehearse the consequences that necessarily followed from that obligation.
5. The adequacy of reasons involves an omnibus question, including whether any alleged deficiency substantially prejudiced the recipient. No prejudice was established. The inspector decided the proposal before him and was not asked to provide guidance on smaller mezzanines or mezzanines for storage or administrative purposes.

First-instance judicial review application in the Administrative Court. No earlier decision is stated in the judgment.