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

On a planning appeal conducted by written representations, an inspector may determine the appeal on the material submitted, even where the evidence is inconclusive or would be better tested at an inquiry or hearing. Fairness requires further inquiry only in exceptional circumstances, where the inspector cannot reach a fair decision on the material before him. A decision letter must be read fairly and in context. It need identify the principal controversial issues and explain the conclusions reached, but need not analyse every item of evidence or mention every material consideration. A reasons challenge succeeds only where inadequate reasoning causes substantial prejudice. Planning-policy wording may require the inspector to exercise judgment by reference to the policy’s underlying purpose.

The claimant local authority sought judicial review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act of an inspector’s decision allowing Stanley Racing’s section 78 appeal. The appeal concerned the proposed change of use of a retail shop in the Bakers Arms District Centre from Class A1 retail use to a Class A2 betting office.

The inspector used the written representations procedure. He concluded that the evidence did not establish that betting-office use was unrelated to a shopping trip, that the criterion concerning three adjoining non-retail units did not apply, and that the frontage criterion could not reliably assess the policy’s purpose. The central issues were whether the inspector should have ordered an inquiry or hearing and whether his concise reasons were legally adequate.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay the First Secretary of State’s costs of £4,406. Permission to appeal was refused.
2. A decision letter must be intelligible and adequate. It must enable an informed reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and how the principal important controversial issues were resolved. It need not refer to every material consideration. The letter must be read straightforwardly, in the context known to the parties. A reasons challenge requires substantial prejudice: South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33.
3. The general rule in a written-representations planning appeal is that the parties must put forward the material on which they rely, and the inspector may decide the appeal on that material. Fairness may exceptionally require further information or a departure from the written procedure, but only where the particular circumstances make that necessary: West v First Secretary of State [2005] EWHC 729 (Admin).
4. The inspector’s statements that the evidence was ambiguous and that surveys would be better tested at an inquiry or hearing did not mean that he was unable to decide the appeal. They were comments on the quality and usefulness of the evidence. The inspector was entitled to conclude that the local authority’s case was not supported by the written evidence and to exercise planning judgment by considering the policy’s underlying aim.
5. The inspector’s concise treatment of the policy criteria was legally sufficient. Read fairly and with knowledge of the evidence, paragraph 5 meant that the proposal would not result in three adjoining non-retail units, and the inspector was entitled to treat the neighbouring bakery and café as sufficiently retail in character. The decision letter adequately explained why the proposal was not shown to harm the vitality or viability of the district centre.

The judgment does not state a prior judicial decision in the same proceedings. It records the inspector’s section 78 planning appeal decision, which allowed the change of use and granted planning permission. The judicial review challenge to that decision was dismissed.