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

In planning decisions, an Inspector may consider precedent and cumulative effects as part of the individual merits of each application. A proposal may be acceptable in isolation yet properly be refused because permitting it would make later applications difficult to resist and could lead incrementally to unacceptable cumulative harm.

An Inspector must read and apply the relevant planning guidance, including guidance on temporary permissions, and undertake a distinct balancing exercise where temporary permission is sought. Statutory race-equality duties are assessed by substance rather than formula. An express reference to the statutory provision is unnecessary if the reasoning demonstrates due regard to the relevant duty.

The claimants sought, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to quash an Inspector’s decisions dismissing their appeals against refusal of planning permission for gypsy occupation of separate plots at Greenacres, Somerset.

The Inspector considered highway safety, landscape, residential amenity, precedent and cumulative effects, the need for gypsy sites, personal circumstances, temporary permission and Convention rights. The claimants alleged failure to consider each appeal individually, errors concerning precedent and Circular 01/2006, and failure to comply with race-equality duties and Article 14 of the Convention.

1. The application was dismissed. The claimants were ordered to pay the first defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £6,600.
2. The Inspector had not failed to determine the appeals individually. Considering precedent and cumulative effects was properly part of assessing the individual merits. The Inspector recognised that each appeal had to be decided on its merits and applied that approach.
3. A planning decision-maker may conclude that one development is harmless in isolation but that successive developments, each individually insufficient to justify refusal, would produce harmful cumulative effects. The Inspector was entitled to find that allowing any one plot would make later applications difficult or impossible for the local authority to resist, creating a foreseeable route to unacceptable harm. The decision letter was to be read fairly and as a whole, and contained no material internal inconsistency.
4. The Inspector separately considered permanent and temporary permission. He was entitled to conclude that the unmet need and other favourable factors were outweighed by the precedent effect and substantial cumulative harm that could result even from temporary permissions. The guidance on temporary permissions did not require a different outcome.
5. The challenge based on race equality and Article 14 failed. The relevant question was whether the Inspector had in substance had due regard to the statutory duty. His recognition of the claimants’ status as gypsies, the shortage of authorised pitches, their accommodation needs and the likely difficulty of finding alternatives showed that the relevant disadvantages had been considered in the overall balance.

First-instance judicial review application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The judgment records no subsequent appellate decision.