IKEA Properties v First Secretary of State

A challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is confined to errors of law. The weight given to evidence and planning considerations is for the decision-maker. A planning decision must be read as a whole by an informed reader, and reasons need address the principal controversial issues sufficiently to show what was decided and why. Where a development serves a wide catchment, the sequential site assessment must address that wider area. Developers must also adopt a realistic degree of flexibility concerning format, design and scale. An error will not justify quashing where the court is satisfied that it caused no substantial prejudice and would not have affected the outcome.

IKEA challenged, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State’s refusal of planning permission for a large IKEA store on a former industrial site in Stockport. A first decision had been quashed for errors unrelated to the first Inspector’s report. The inquiry was reopened under rule 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000, and a second Inspector recommended refusal.

The Secretary of State concluded that the store would serve a catchment wider than Stockport, that the sequential site search was inadequate, and that the objections outweighed the regeneration and employment benefits. The central issues were whether the decision letter gave adequate reasons, properly addressed the earlier evidence, lawfully assessed the catchment and sequential approach, and gave lawful weight to the competing planning considerations.

The claim was dismissed. The decision letter was unsatisfactory in some respects, but its essential reasoning was sufficiently clear and no error causing substantial prejudice was established.

1. Scope of challenge. A section 288 challenge lies only for an error of law, including a decision outside the statutory powers or failure to comply with a relevant statutory requirement. The weight given to evidence is for the planning decision-maker, not the court. Policy interpretation is also for the decision-maker provided the wording permits the interpretation adopted.
2. Reasons. The decision letter must be read as a whole and by an informed reader. It must give intelligible and adequate reasons on the principal controversial issues, but need not refer to every material consideration or expressly mention an Inspector’s recommendations. Where the Secretary of State departs from an Inspector’s conclusion, the important issue is whether the decision letter adequately explains the resulting decision. The court should intervene only where a genuine doubt exists as to what was decided and why, together with substantial prejudice.
3. Reopened inquiry. The reopened inquiry was a continuation of the original inquiry. The Secretary of State could not simply ignore evidence previously received, but he was entitled to focus on the issues considered at the reopened inquiry where they substantially overlapped with the earlier issues. IKEA therefore had to identify a significant controversial issue which had not been properly addressed.
4. Catchment and sequential assessment. The actual catchment served by the development, rather than the developer’s description of it, determined the area for the sequential search. Store size was relevant but not determinative. The Secretary of State was entitled to find that the store would draw customers from beyond the Stockport sub-region. The site search was inadequate because it had not been conducted on that wider-catchment basis and had not demonstrated sufficient flexibility in format, design and scale.
5. Planning benefits and materiality. The Secretary of State was entitled to treat uncertain effects on linked trips and vehicle mileage as neutral. His language concerning the standard of proof was unfortunate, but the decision letter, read fairly, showed genuine uncertainty rather than the imposition of an impermissibly high legal threshold. Any errors concerning the linked-trip survey and Manchester sites would not have altered the outcome. The Secretary of State was also entitled to give the adopted UDP substantial weight and the emerging plan very limited weight.

The judgment records that an earlier refusal had been quashed by an order of the Administrative Court dated 7 February 2003. The inquiry was then reopened and the Secretary of State issued the refusal challenged in these proceedings. This was a first-instance section 288 challenge.