Linfoot v Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government

A statutory planning challenge under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 288 concerns legality, not the planning merits. The court must make its own objective assessment even where the Secretary of State concedes the claim, although the concession may carry limited weight. A decision maker must consider material matters which might realistically affect the outcome. When deciding whether temporary planning permission is justified because planning circumstances may change, the assessment must address the relevant wider area where the evidence identifies regional or county-wide need. A decision letter read as a whole must give adequate reasons on important controversial issues. Failure to show that the wider area and the prospect of changed circumstances were considered may substantially prejudice the claimant and justify quashing the decision.

The claimant applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to challenge an inspector’s refusal of temporary planning permission for a traveller site in the Green Belt. The Secretary of State conceded the claim on the basis that the inspector had given inadequate reasons, but Chorley Borough Council opposed the consent order.

The inspector had recognised significant need for sites at regional and county level, but, when considering temporary permission, focused on the absence of a demonstrated need in Chorley and the absence of a proposed local needs assessment. The central issues were whether the inspector had failed to consider the prospect of planning circumstances changing in the wider area and whether his reasons were adequate.

1. The statutory appeal succeeded and the inspector’s decision of 22 May 2012 was quashed. The Secretary of State’s concession did not relieve the court of its duty under section 288(5)(b) to form its own objective assessment. The concession was given limited weight because no explanation for it was provided.
2. A challenge under section 288 lies on legal grounds only. The court must not substitute its own planning judgment for that of the decision maker. The decision letter must be read as a whole and with reasonable flexibility. The reasons must nevertheless be proper, intelligible and adequate on the principal important controversial issues.
3. The relevant consideration principle required the inspector to consider whether there was a real possibility that consideration of the wider-area issue would have made a difference to the decision. The inspector had found a significant need for sites at regional and county level and had accepted that alternative sites need not be within Chorley District.
4. Despite those findings, paragraphs 56 and 57 of the decision letter dealt only with Chorley’s local need and the possibility of a new assessment by Chorley Borough Council. They did not show that the inspector had considered whether planning circumstances might change in the wider area during the requested temporary period.
5. That omission was material. The inspector might have reached the same conclusion, particularly given the substantial Green Belt harm, but the absence of adequate reasons created substantial doubt that all relevant matters had been considered. The claimant was substantially prejudiced. The inadequate-reasons and failure-to-consider grounds substantially covered the same error.

Not stated in the judgment.