Winter v First Secretary of State & Anor

On a planning appeal conducted by written representations, an Inspector need address the principal controversial issues and material considerations, but need not give detailed reasons for every argument or evidential conflict. Reasons are adequate if they intelligibly explain the decision and disclose how the principal issues were resolved. A small development may still cause material planning harm where its effects extend beyond the immediate site. An Inspector may determine the appeal on its own planning merits and is not bound by an earlier decision on allegedly comparable facts. An unaccompanied site visit is ordinarily appropriate under the written procedure where the appeal site and relevant features can be seen from public land, unless an accompanied visit is essential.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash a Planning Inspector’s dismissal of his appeal under section 78(2). The appeal concerned a proposed extension to a woodland track providing access to a horticultural development. The Inspector concluded that the track would harm the woodland’s character, visual amenities and biodiversity, and that the benefits did not outweigh that harm.

The claimant alleged failure to consider material considerations, inadequate reasons, and procedural unfairness arising from an unaccompanied and unannounced site visit. The central questions were whether the Inspector had erred in law or substantially prejudiced the claimant’s interests.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant failed to establish that the Inspector’s decision was outside the statutory powers or that there had been a relevant failure causing substantial prejudice under section 288(5)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The Inspector had regard to the proposed horticultural development, the woodland management material, the Tree Preservation Orders, the woodland’s character and biodiversity, and the likely effects of continued vehicle use. She was not required to mention every aspect of the evidence or make precise findings on every disputed matter. Her conclusion that the proposal caused harm despite affecting only a small area was a planning judgment open to her.
3. The Inspector was entitled to determine the appeal on its own merits. An earlier planning decision, even if comparable, was not binding. The Inspector could focus on the proposal before her rather than conduct a precise comparison.
4. Applying the principles stated by Lord Brown in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33, adequate reasons must be intelligible and sufficient to explain the decision and resolve the principal controversial issues. They need not address every material consideration or provide detailed reasons for the reasons. The written-representation procedure was relevant context, and the decision letter adequately explained why the appeal was dismissed.
5. The unaccompanied site visit caused no substantial prejudice. The claimant had agreed to the written procedure, under which an unaccompanied visit was the starting position. The appeal site and woodland margins were visible from public land, and the Inspector’s decision not to seek an accompanied visit was not irrational.

First-instance judicial review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Planning Inspector had dismissed the claimant’s planning appeal and refused permission; the Administrative Court dismissed the challenge.