Crossley, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Ors

An application under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 288, is concerned with legal defects in an inspector’s decision, not with a rehearing of the planning merits. The weight given to evidence is ordinarily for the inspector, and disagreement about that weight raises no issue of law. A perversity challenge is especially difficult where conclusions depend materially on a site inspection. An inspector must consider the representations and material placed before him, but is not generally under a duty to seek out further material. Related planning and listed-building applications need not invariably be determined concurrently where their separate consideration will not prejudice proper examination.

The claimant challenged, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an inspector’s decision allowing appeals against refusals of planning permission and conservation area consent for redevelopment at 155 Gray’s Inn Road, London.

The proposed development involved demolishing a warehouse and constructing a mixed-use scheme with offices, residential units and basement parking. The claimant alleged that the inspector’s conclusions concerning the conservation area, adjoining listed buildings, residential amenity, transport policy, energy efficiency, listed-building consent and ownership of a boundary wall were perverse or legally flawed.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant’s objections amounted to disagreement with the inspector’s assessment of the planning merits and disclosed no legal defect.
2. Section 288 does not provide an opportunity to re-run the planning case. It is for the inspector to decide the weight to be given to particular evidence. The inspector was entitled to attach little weight to strongly expressed views unsupported by reasons.
3. The perversity challenge failed. The inspector had inspected the site and had explained why the proposed development would preserve or enhance the conservation area, the listed buildings and their settings. The court was reviewing the decision on the papers and could not substitute its own site assessment.
4. The inspector had properly considered residential amenity and had carried out the necessary balancing exercise under Article 1 of Protocol 1. That provision protected both the developers’ ability to deal with their property, subject to planning controls, and adjoining owners’ interests in the protection of their amenities.
5. The inspector was required to deal with the representations and material placed before him. The claimant identified no authority for a general duty to seek further information or investigate whether additional material might exist.
6. It was not legally erroneous to determine the planning appeals separately from any later listed-building consent application. The inspector had considered the guidance in PPG15, explained why separate consideration would not prejudice proper examination, and imposed a condition protecting the integrity of any subsequent listed-building application.
7. Questions concerning ownership of the wall or whether it was a party wall were matters of private law. They did not affect the overall planning merits or justify refusing permission for the development.
8. Costs were summarily assessed at £3,000.