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

A planning inspector’s reasons need address the principal important controversial issues, but need not refer to every material consideration or state every step in detail. A reasons challenge succeeds only where the decision is unintelligible or inadequate and the claimant establishes substantial prejudice.

Whether a development makes efficient use of a site, and how much weight to give emerging affordable-housing policies, are matters of planning judgment unless the inspector has misunderstood the policy framework or acted irrationally. A developer is not ordinarily entitled to a second order for costs where the Secretary of State adequately covers the issues, absent a separate interest requiring representation.

The claimant local authority brought a claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal and granting permission for redevelopment involving business and residential use.

The site was in a conservation area and adjacent to a listed building. The principal dispute concerned whether the scheme should include affordable housing, having regard to national, London-wide and local policies, including differing thresholds of 15 and 10 dwellings. The claimant alleged errors of law, inadequate reasons and failure to address the possibility of including affordable housing without changing the proposed layout.

The court also determined the defendants’ costs positions, including an application by the developer for a second order for costs.

1. The claim under section 288 was dismissed. The inspector had been entitled to give some weight to the emerging lower affordable-housing threshold while recognising that the adopted national and London policies set a maximum threshold of 15 dwellings. The uncertainties in the emerging regional and local policies did not require greater weight to be given to the lower threshold.

2. The inspector’s conclusions that the proposed ten-unit scheme made efficient use of the site and was appropriate in the conservation area were matters of planning judgment. He had considered the physical constraints, fire-escape and building-regulation requirements, residential amenity, density, the listed building and conservation-area interests, and the character of the surrounding area.

3. Applying the guidance in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953, the reasons were intelligible and adequate. They showed why the inspector approved the scheme without affordable housing. He was not required separately to address every possible way in which affordable housing might have been incorporated, nor to refer expressly to every submission, provided the principal issues were addressed.

4. There was no demonstrated misunderstanding of policies H14, H15 or PPS3, paragraph 26, and no error of law in the inspector’s treatment of the ten-dwelling threshold or the policy uncertainties.

5. The Secretary of State was capable of, and did, cover the issues raised by the claimant. Applying the guidance in Bolton, the developer had no separate interest requiring representation. The claimant was ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs in the sum of £5,600. There was no order for the developer’s costs. Permission to appeal was refused to the claimant; any appeal concerning the developer’s costs had to be pursued through the Court of Appeal.

First-instance judicial review claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The court dismissed the claim and refused permission to appeal to the claimant.