Jenkins v Welsh Assembly Government

A court reviewing an inspector’s statutory decision may intervene for material legal error, including reliance on no evidence, an irrational conclusion, misinterpretation of the statute or inadequate reasons. Reasons must be intelligible and sufficient to show how the principal controversial issues were resolved. A decision-maker must assess the statutory balance between public benefit and the effect on private interests, including any available compensation. Unsupported commercial assertions may receive no weight, but a distinct and evidenced risk of loss may be relevant to compensation. Matters not raised before the decision-maker, particularly matters arising afterwards, cannot ordinarily found a challenge.

Ceredigion County Council made a public path creation order under section 26 of the Highways Act 1980 to extend the Ceredigion Coastal Path across or near the claimant’s farm and tourist Farm Park. Following a public inquiry, the inspector confirmed the order, subject to modifications including fencing and path realignment.

The claimant applied under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Act to quash the inspector’s decision. He alleged inadequate reasoning concerning business detriment, safety, parking and agricultural drainage. The central issues were whether the inspector had misunderstood the statutory requirements, failed to consider material matters, or reached conclusions unsupported by the evidence.

1. Application dismissed. The inspector had approached the statutory task lawfully and had reached conclusions open to him on the evidence.
2. The principles governing review of an inspector’s decision were stated by reference to Ashridge v Minister of Housing & Local Government [1965] 3 All ER 371 (CA), Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 66 P & CR 263 (CA) and South Bucks DC v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953 (HL). The reasons had to be intelligible and clear, while the decision was to be read in a straightforward and practical manner.
3. The inspector had considered the alleged effect on the Farm Park. The general business objection was unsupported assertion and could properly be given no weight. The parking issue was different: it was a discrete potential source of measurable loss. The inspector was entitled to take the compensation provisions in section 26(1)(b) and section 28(1) of the Highways Act 1980 into account.
4. The inspector had not delegated the safety decision to the Council. He considered the site-specific risks, cliff-top pinch points, proposed minimum widths, existing coastal paths and the Council’s safety proposals. Practical implementation remained a matter for the Council.
5. The agricultural drainage complaints could not succeed. They had not been raised before the inspector and partly concerned matters arising after the decision. It would have been irrational to require the inspector to decide the case on matters not put in evidence.
6. The claimant’s human-rights point was not pursued. The claim was dismissed.