South Bucks District Council and another (Respondents) v. Porter (FC) (Appellant)

Reasons for a planning decision must be intelligible and adequate. They must explain why the matter was decided as it was and resolve the principal important controversial issues. Reasons may be brief, and their required particularity depends on the issues. A challenge succeeds only where a deficiency has genuinely caused substantial prejudice.

A decision letter should be read straightforwardly and in context. It need not address every material consideration. The unlawfulness of existing development may weaken a claim based on the fact or duration of that use, but a retrospective application is not automatically to be refused. Materiality depends on how the claim is advanced.

A planning inspector granted Mrs Porter personal permission to retain a residential mobile home in the Green Belt. He found very special circumstances in her gipsy status, serious ill-health and lack of an alternative site.

Judge Rich QC, sitting in the Administrative Court, dismissed the council's statutory challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: [2002] EWHC 2136 Admin. The Court of Appeal allowed the council's appeal, holding that the inspector's reasons were inadequate and that he had failed to consider the persistent unlawfulness of the occupation: [2003] EWCA Civ 687; [2004] JPL 207.

The issues before the House were whether the reasons sufficiently explained the inspector's Green Belt judgment and whether the unlawfulness of the occupation was a material consideration which he had overlooked.

Appeal allowed unanimously. Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood delivered the leading speech. Lord Steyn, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Carswell agreed with his reasons and conclusion.

1. Per Lord Brown, reasons must be intelligible and adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the decision was reached and the conclusions on the principal important controversial issues. They may be brief, and the required particularity depends on the issues. A challenge succeeds only where the aggrieved party proves genuine substantial prejudice. Decision letters must be read straightforwardly, in the context of parties familiar with the issues, without excessive legalism.

2. Per Lord Brown, the inspector gave clear and ample reasons. His task was a planning value judgment: whether Mrs Porter's serious hardship constituted very special circumstances clearly outweighing the harm to the Green Belt. Her age, serious ill-health, rooted fear of permanent housing, lack of an alternative pitch, risk to continuing medical treatment and likely deterioration were fully explained. The Court of Appeal had improperly inflated the reasons requirement, possibly because of the importance of Green Belt protection. The standard of reasoning does not vary with the importance of the issue.

3. Per Lord Brown, section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 permits retrospective planning permission. The mere fact that development occurred without permission does not necessarily count against permission. Unlawfulness is, however, material where an occupier relies on the fact or duration of continuing use; it then weakens that claim. Persistent occupation despite enforcement is materially different from a bare breach of planning control and may properly be characterised as criminal.

4. Per Lord Brown, Mrs Porter did not rely on her long occupation as a source of hardship. Her gipsy status, ill-health and lack of an alternative site did not derive their force from the duration of residence. Its unlawfulness was therefore of little, if any, materiality.

5. Per Lord Brown, even assuming unlawfulness was material, the inspector had not overlooked it. He knew that permission was retrospective and recorded the enforcement history. Since unlawfulness was not a main issue, he did not have to mention it expressly. The Court of Appeal had no proper basis for inferring that it was ignored.

Judge Rich QC's order dismissing the council's statutory application was restored. The council was ordered to pay Mrs Porter's costs in the House and below. There was no order concerning the Secretary of State's costs.

1. House of Lords: The House unanimously allowed Mrs Porter's appeal, reversed the Court of Appeal and restored the Administrative Court's dismissal of the statutory challenge: [2004] UKHL 33.
2. Court of Appeal: The court allowed the council's appeal and quashed the inspector's grant of permission for inadequate reasons and failure to consider the unlawfulness of the occupation: [2003] EWCA Civ 687; [2004] JPL 207.
3. Administrative Court: Judge Rich QC dismissed the council's application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: [2002] EWHC 2136 Admin.
4. Planning inspector: The inspector allowed Mrs Porter's appeal against refusal of permission and granted personal retrospective permission for retention of the mobile home.