London & Bath Estates Group Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

A planning decision is not unlawful merely because an Inspector fails to mention a particular policy, provided the decision, read as a whole, shows that its underlying principles were taken into account. An Inspector need not address every submission or item of evidence expressly where the reasoning demonstrates that the relevant issues were considered and the omission could not have affected the result. Planning judgments on design, amenity and highway safety are matters with which the court should not interfere absent an error of law, inadequate reasons or failure to consider a material matter.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an Inspector’s decision dismissing appeals against refusal of planning permission and express advertising consent. The proposed development was an office building with illuminated LED advertising panels at Chiswick Roundabout.

The claimant alleged that the Inspector failed to consider relevant planning policies, the viability and possible continued dereliction of the site, design evidence, the effect on surrounding areas, light pollution, highway characteristics and expert evidence. The central question was whether those matters disclosed an error of law, inadequate reasons or a failure to take account of relevant considerations.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Inspector’s decision was not outside the powers conferred by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and the reasons given were adequate. The claimant was ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs, assessed if not agreed.
2. The failure expressly to refer to policy IMP 4.2 was not fatal. Applying the principle stated in South Somerset District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 1 PLR 80 at p 86, the decision had to be read as a whole. The Inspector had recognised the policy objective of regeneration and economic development, and had balanced it against environmental considerations.
3. The Inspector was not required to address the possible consequences of refusing permission, including further dereliction caused by the alleged lack of viability of alternative schemes. The viability evidence was insubstantial, and the Inspector was concerned principally with the acceptability of the proposal. In any event, his strong criticisms of the design made it inconceivable that express consideration of the point would have changed the outcome.
4. The Inspector was entitled to make a subjective planning judgment that the height, illuminated panels and their relationship produced a dominant, alien and incongruous feature. He was also entitled to disagree with the Mayor’s view of the design without referring to it expressly.
5. The Inspector’s treatment of highway safety was lawful. Although the road was properly considered as a motorway because that was its official classification, the Inspector also considered its particular characteristics, traffic conditions and driver behaviour. He was not required to set out every aspect of the claimant’s expert evidence where his conclusion that the advertisements would create an additional safety risk was clear.
6. The Inspector had not expressly dealt with glare as a separate aspect of light pollution. That omission did not justify relief because it operated in the claimant’s favour and could not have affected the conclusion concerning the subjective perception of light pollution.