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

A planning inspector must determine an appeal in the light of the written material and the evidence given at the hearing, taking account of written submissions only to the extent that they remain unmodified. The inspector need not address every written contention separately where the evidence has altered or weakened it. A challenge based on failure to consider a proposed section 106 obligation will fail where the obligation was not pursued as a realistic objection, proposed condition or operative part of the case before the inspector. The court will not substitute its own planning judgment for that of the inspector where the material objections were considered and the conclusion was reasonably open to him.

The claimant local authority challenged a planning inspector’s decision granting permission for seven houses on a site in Chessington. The authority relied on a highway objection based principally on a shortfall in on-site parking and the resulting risk of additional parking on Somerset Avenue. It also argued that the inspector had failed to address a possible section 106 obligation dealing with parking restrictions and road markings.

The inspector considered the evidence at an informal hearing, including evidence from the authority’s highways officer, and concluded that the proposal would not adversely affect highway safety. The central issue was whether he had failed to deal with material highway objections or had erred in law by not addressing the written case in greater detail.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector had considered the highway issue and there was no error of law in his decision.
2. An inspector must assess the matter in the light of all material before him, including written representations insofar as they have not been modified by evidence given at the hearing. He is not required to deal separately with written points which have been weakened, altered or abandoned by the evidence.
3. The inspector was entitled to conclude that the proposed parking provision would adequately serve future residents, having regard to the site’s proximity to shops and bus stops. He also considered the visibility and private character of the proposed access and addressed the concern that traffic might have difficulty reading the road at the bend.
4. The complaint concerning a possible section 106 obligation had no substance. The highways officer had mentioned the possibility only briefly, the authority had not proposed the obligation in its appeal statement, and the matter was not pursued when obligations were discussed at the hearing. The inspector was therefore not required to deal with it more specifically.
5. The inspector was entitled to rely on the evidence actually given by the authority’s witness. He was not required to reconstruct a stronger highway objection from the authority’s written case where its witness had not supported it. The court would not interfere with the inspector’s planning judgment once the relevant material had been considered.

The claim was dismissed with costs of £8,544.