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

Planning decision letters must give intelligible and adequate reasons. They must enable the reader to understand how the principal important controversial issues were resolved and must not create substantial doubt that the decision-maker misunderstood the law or failed to reach a rational conclusion.

Where the General Permitted Development Order 1995 defines a “flat” by reference to separate, self-contained premises divided horizontally, an inspector must not use that term in a way which leaves substantial doubt whether the statutory definition is intended. Such uncertainty may justify quashing the decision, even though a finding that occupants lived as separate households might itself be open to the inspector as a matter of fact and degree.

The claimant sought a certificate of lawful existing use under section 191 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 for a house and rear ancillary building. The local planning authority refused the certificate, and the Secretary of State’s inspector dismissed the appeal under section 195.

The inspector found that the older and younger generations had lived as separate households, and concluded that the property had been occupied as two separate flats. The claimant challenged the decision under section 288, alleging inadequate reasons and irrationality. The central issue was whether the inspector’s use of “flats” created substantial doubt about whether he had applied the definition in article 1(2) of the General Permitted Development Order 1995.

1. The application under section 288 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 succeeded. The inspector’s decision was liable to be quashed because the reasons left substantial doubt about the meaning in which he used the term “flats”.
2. The court applied the principles summarised by Lord Brown in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33, [2004] 1 WLR 1953. Reasons must be intelligible and adequate, explain why the decision was reached, and disclose how the principal important controversial issues of law and fact were resolved. A reasons challenge succeeds where the inadequacy creates substantial doubt that the decision-maker erred in law or failed to decide rationally on relevant grounds.
3. The inspector was entitled, as a matter of fact and degree, to conclude that the family members had lived as separate households. That conclusion would not have been challengeable merely because another decision-maker might have reached a different factual assessment.
4. However, article 1(2) of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 defines a flat as a separate and self-contained set of premises forming part of a building and divided horizontally from another part. The inspector had found no physical separation between the floors. The Secretary of State accepted that a finding that the property comprised flats in that statutory sense would have been wrong and insupportable.
5. The inspector’s conclusion that the building was occupied as “two separate flats”, without stating whether that expression carried the statutory meaning or some different meaning, made it impossible to understand the legal basis of the decision. The court did not determine that the property necessarily was a single dwellinghouse on redetermination.

The claim challenged the Secretary of State inspector’s dismissal of a planning appeal under section 195 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. The court allowed the section 288 challenge.