Villa Ria Trading, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor

In a challenge to a planning inspector’s decision, the court must read the decision letter as a whole and ask whether the inspector considered material matters, ignored immaterial matters, gave adequate and intelligible reasons, complied with procedural requirements and reached a rational conclusion. The court must not substitute its own planning judgment for that of the inspector. A decision letter cannot ordinarily be supplemented or explained by the inspector’s witness statement. Inappropriate development in the Green Belt requires very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm caused by inappropriateness and other harm. A temporary permission does not, by itself, remove that harm. Article 8 considerations must be addressed proportionately within the planning balance.

The claimant sought judicial review of an inspector’s decision dismissing its appeal against refusal of retrospective planning permission for a temporary caravan park for construction workers engaged on the Heathrow Terminal 5 project. The site was in the Metropolitan Green Belt, and the proposed use was accepted to be inappropriate development.

The claimant argued that the inspector had failed to give adequate reasons, acted irrationally in assessing the need for worker accommodation, relied on a point without inviting further submissions, and mishandled the residents’ Article 8 rights. The central issues were whether the decision was legally flawed and whether refusal of permission was proportionate in human-rights terms.

1. Judicial review principles. The decision letter had to be read as a whole. The court’s task was to determine whether the inspector considered material considerations, ignored immaterial considerations, gave adequate and intelligible reasons, complied with procedural requirements and avoided irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness. The court was not entitled to substitute its own view of the planning merits.
2. Planning balance. The inspector was entitled to regard the case for worker accommodation as strong but insufficient to outweigh the substantial Green Belt, highway, environmental and other harm. The weight given to need was a matter for the inspector. The inspector was also entitled to take account of the absence of evidence that refusal would jeopardise the contractor’s obligations or the timely completion of Terminal 5.
3. Temporary permission and conditions. The temporary nature of the proposed use did not prevent substantial weight being given to its harm. The inspector was entitled to consider the costs of establishing and removing the site, and the resulting practical difficulty of controlling a later extension. The decision letter could not be supplemented by the inspector’s witness statement, although the statement was accepted insofar as it confirmed what had occurred at the inquiry.
4. Human rights. The inspector properly recognised that refusal might interfere with residents’ Article 8 rights, but was entitled to conclude that protecting the Green Belt and preventing other identified harm were legitimate aims, and that refusal would not impose a disproportionate burden. The approach was endorsed by Lough and others v First Secretary of State [2004] 1 WLR 2557.
5. The judicial review claim was dismissed. Judgment was entered for the First Secretary of State, with costs summarily assessed at £6,897.

Not stated in the judgment.