Adigwe, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Communities and Local Government

In a challenge to a planning inspector’s decision, matters of planning judgment, including the weight given to material considerations, are for the inspector. The decision letter must be read straightforwardly. It is sufficient if the reasons are intelligible and adequate. An inspector may take account of disturbance, congestion, parking, residential and commercial amenity, and crime or fear of crime where relevant. The existence of other statutory controls does not prevent those matters from being considered in planning. A site visit during a written-representations appeal need not be notified under the Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) Regulations 2000.

The claimants sought to quash under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s dismissal of their appeal against refusal of permanent planning permission for a private-hire vehicle booking office in central London. Temporary permission had expired, and evidence showed breaches of operating conditions, congestion, parking, noise and disturbance. The claimants argued that the inspector had relied on immaterial or insufficient considerations, failed to account for comparable premises, and breached procedural requirements by conducting an unnotified site visit. The central issue was whether the inspector’s decision disclosed an error of law or inadequate reasoning.

1. Claim dismissed. The court found no basis to quash the inspector’s decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. Planning judgment, including the weight given to material considerations, falls within the inspector’s province. The decision letter must be read in a straightforward manner. No objection arises where the reasons are intelligible and adequate.
3. The inspector was entitled to conclude that the proposed use would affect surrounding residential and commercial properties. He had considered the existing busy thoroughfare, other nearby car-hire offices and the consequences of breaches of the temporary conditions. The weight given to those matters was for him.
4. The inspector was entitled to consider congestion and parking despite the availability of other legislative controls. Crime and fear of crime were capable of being material planning considerations, although the inspector did not rely on them in his stated reasons.
5. The written-representations procedure did not require notice of the inspector’s site visit. The challenge therefore disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or inadequacy of reasons.
6. An order was made that the claimants pay the defendant’s costs of £8,478, jointly and severally.