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

Planning judgments are primarily matters for the specialist decision-maker. The court should read an inspector’s decision benevolently and avoid undue textual scrutiny. It should not interfere with planning judgments unless the conclusions are irrational or unavailable to any reasonable decision-maker. A site inspection may provide an important evidential basis which cannot readily be replicated by plans or photographs. Minor factual errors or misdescriptions will not invalidate a decision unless they affect the core reasoning or undermine its rationality. Where one lawful planning objection independently justifies refusal, an arguable weakness in another ground will not alter the result.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to challenge an inspector’s dismissal of his section 78 appeal. The appeal concerned refusal of planning permission to convert a stable block into a dwelling at Montgomery House, Somersal Herbert.

The inspector identified two issues: the effect on the character and appearance of the building and conservation area, and whether the development was sustainable having regard to access to local services and increased car journeys. The claimant challenged the inspector’s factual descriptions, assessment of the settlement, and conclusions on both issues.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant had not established an error of law or irrationality in the inspector’s decision.
2. The court should adopt a degree of benevolence when reading an inspector’s decision letter. It should not subject the language to undue textual scrutiny. This approach was supported by South Somerset District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 1 PLR at 80 and 83.
3. The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, and the relationship between properties, were matters of planning judgment. The court could intervene only where the inspector’s conclusions were irrational and not open to any reasonable decision-maker. The relevant approach was illustrated by Tesco v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759 and Newsmith Stainless Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 74.
4. The inspector had sufficient information, including the claimant’s conservation-area assessment, the development plan policies and her own site visit. The court could not recreate the impressions obtained on the site visit from plans and photographs. Any misdescriptions or factual errors did not affect the core assessment or make the conclusion irrational.
5. The inspector was entitled to conclude that the conversion would harm the character and appearance of the conservation area and conflict with the development plan. That provided a sufficient lawful basis for dismissing the appeal. The sustainability reasoning was described as thin, but the challenge to it had not been shown to establish irrationality and, in any event, that issue was not necessary to the result.
6. The claimant was ordered to pay the First Secretary of State’s costs, summarily assessed at £3,484.

The judgment was a first-instance judicial review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It challenged an inspector’s decision dismissing a section 78 planning appeal and thereby upholding the local authority’s refusal of planning permission.