Siddiqui, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

A planning appeal to the Administrative Court is concerned with identifying an error of law in the inspector’s decision. It is not a rehearing of the planning application, and new evidence or a differently formulated case will ordinarily require a fresh planning application.

An allegation of bias or misconduct must be properly particularised and supported by sufficiently clear evidence. Generalised assertions are inadequate. A reasoned planning decision will not be irrational merely because the inspector reaches a different conclusion from a consultees’ lack of objection. The inspector must consider material factors that were firmly advanced, but need not address a case that was not properly put before her.

The claimant challenged an inspector’s refusal of planning permission for the change of use of his house as a pre-school, post-school and holiday childcare centre. The inspector accepted that the proposed use would not materially harm the residential character of the area or neighbours’ living conditions, but found unacceptable highway-safety implications and insufficient evidence of a specific community need or the absence of alternative sites.

The claimant alleged procedural misconduct during the site visit, failure to consider transport evidence and the continuing residential presence, and racial prejudice. The claim was heard after four previous adjournments, without the claimant attending. The central issues were whether the inspector had erred in law, acted irrationally, or acted improperly.

1. Disposition. The claim was dismissed. The court proceeded in the claimant’s absence because the papers were sufficient, there was no adequate evidence that he could not attend, and the case had already been adjourned four times. Planning matters should be determined speedily, and dismissal of this appeal did not prevent a fresh planning application.
2. Nature of the appeal. The appeal was directed to showing an error of law by the inspector, rather than obtaining a rehearing. New or improved highway evidence could be relevant to a fresh application but was unlikely to found this appeal.
3. Alleged site-visit misconduct. The court regarded the allegation as general and unparticularised. The approach in R v Reigate Justices, ex parte Curl [1991] COD 1-76, requiring the court to accept evidence standing against the person bearing the onus where accounts conflicted, was not considered necessarily helpful. The court preferred the approach used in the Employment Appeal Tribunal: obtain full particulars, affidavits or equivalent responses, and the tribunal’s account, then assess the papers. Cross-examination is rarely useful except where a specific, carefully analysed factual event is genuinely disputed. The inspector’s detailed account and speaking note satisfactorily rebutted the claimant’s generic allegations.
4. Planning merits and rationality. The inspector had expressly recorded that the Head of Transport and Engineering raised no objection, but was entitled and obliged to reach her own reasoned conclusion on on-site and off-site parking and dropping-off arrangements. Her conclusion that the proposal created unacceptable traffic hazards was logical and not Wednesbury unreasonable.
5. Housing and community need. The inspector considered the proposed overnight security presence but was entitled to distinguish it from full residential use. The claimant had not firmly advanced a case that the house would remain a residential dwelling with an ancillary club. The inspector was also entitled to find insufficient evidence of a specific community need, current provision, or the lack of alternative locations under Havering Unitary Development Plan policy HSG3. The claimant could not use the appeal to introduce a substantially different case based specifically on unmet childcare needs of ethnic-minority children.

The judgment was a first-instance judicial review of a planning inspector’s refusal of permission. No earlier court decision is stated in the judgment.