Mid Beds Model Aircraft Club v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

An inspector deciding a planning appeal must address the principal controversial issues and give reasons that enable the reader to understand the decision. Reasons need not analyse every item of evidence or every material consideration. Compliance with non-statutory guidance on noise does not determine whether planning permission must be granted where the guidance permits local circumstances to be considered. In a written-representations appeal, an inspector is generally not required to search for unoffered conditions capable of overcoming an identified planning objection. The appellant should state both its primary case and any conditions it would accept in the alternative. The inspector’s duty is not enlarged unless an obvious problem has an obvious solution which has been properly raised or is otherwise apparent.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s decision dismissing its appeal against refusal of temporary planning permission. The proposed use involved model aircraft flying, associated car parking, storage containers and a shed on agricultural land near residential properties.

The inspector treated noise and disturbance to nearby residents as the main issue. He concluded that, despite compliance with the Code of Practice on Noise from Model Aircraft and controls over aircraft operation, the use would have an unacceptable effect on residential living conditions. The claimant alleged inadequate reasons and failure to consider planning conditions.

1. The challenge was dismissed. The inspector’s decision letter, read as a whole, adequately addressed the principal controversial issue: the effect of noise on nearby residents.
2. The reasons were sufficient under the approach stated in South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter No.2 [2004] UKHL 33. The inspector was not required to explain every evidential comparison or refer expressly to tonal quality. His operative conclusion had an evidential basis and was neither irrational nor legally deficient.
3. The Code of Practice was guidance rather than a binding rule. It expressly recognised that local circumstances differed and that more or less stringent controls might be appropriate. Compliance therefore did not require permission to be granted. The inspector was entitled, and required by the reason for refusal, to consider the evidence as a whole, including residents’ evidence and the council’s specialist noise evidence.
4. The claimant had not positively advanced any alternative conditions. Its case relied on compliance with the Code, while remaining silent about whether it accepted the council’s without-prejudice conditions. In those circumstances, the inspector was not obliged to assess conditions which had not been properly canvassed.
5. The principles reviewed in Hann v Secretary of State for Local Government and the Regions and Sedgemoor District Council 2002 EWHC 507 Admin supported that conclusion. An inspector need not devise conditions to cure an obvious problem unless there is an obvious solution which can realistically be identified from the material before him. No such solution was established here. The claimant’s appeal was dismissed on both grounds. Costs were left for submissions.

The judgment was a first-instance statutory challenge to an inspector’s decision. No prior judicial appellate decision is stated.