Bridle v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

An appellant challenging a planning inspector’s factual and evaluative conclusion on irrationality faces a high hurdle. The difficulty is particularly acute where the inspector is an expert tribunal, makes planning judgments, conducts a site inspection and assesses the evidence as a whole. A court must not substitute its own view merely because it might have evaluated the evidence differently. A conclusion will stand where it is supported by the evidence, including site observations, documentary material, witness evidence and credibility findings.

The appellant challenged part of a planning inspector’s decision on two enforcement appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The relevant enforcement notice alleged that part of a log cabin and a physically separate goat shed had been used together as a residential unit. The inspector concluded that the buildings had formed one dwelling unit from 1997 to early 2002.

Permission to appeal was limited to whether that conclusion was irrational in light of two DVDs shown to the inspector. The court viewed the DVDs and considered the inspector’s wider evidence and findings.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant failed to establish that the inspector’s conclusion was irrational.
2. An inspector is an expert tribunal making both factual findings and planning judgments. The threshold for establishing Wednesbury irrationality is therefore high, and is particularly difficult where the conclusion is informed by a site inspection and the impressions formed there.
3. The inspector was entitled to consider the evidence cumulatively. The DVDs did not stand alone: the inspector had evidence of Council inspections, domestic items in the goat shed, the appellant’s own evidence and serious concerns about his credibility. The condition of the goat shed shown in later footage did not undermine the conclusion about its earlier use.
4. The court’s viewing of the DVDs did not justify substituting its assessment for that of the inspector. The inspector’s conclusion that the log cabin and goat shed had been used together as one dwelling unit was amply supported by the evidence and was not irrational.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the planning inspector’s decision was dismissed. Permission had been granted on a limited irrationality ground.