Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Proudfoot Properties Ltd

Planning decision reasons are adequate when, read fairly and in context, they explain why the decision was reached and address the principal important controversial issues. A decision-maker need not resolve a disputed fact expressly where, even assuming the claimant’s account, that fact could not affect the outcome. Where refusal of permission is the only means of safeguarding legitimate planning aims, personal circumstances cannot outweigh the resulting harm. An alleged assurance by an official lacking authority to grant planning permission cannot bind the local authority or the Planning Inspector.

Proudfoot Properties Limited sought permission for six houses on a former pig-rearing site in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Inspector dismissed the appeal after rejecting the principal planning issues and considering the appellant’s personal circumstances and Convention arguments.

The appellant alleged that the pig-rearing use had ceased under an agreement with the Council that alternative development would be permitted. Lang J quashed the Inspector’s decision because he had not expressly resolved that factual dispute. The Secretary of State appealed. The central issue was whether the Inspector’s reasons were adequate despite the absence of an express finding on the alleged agreement.

Appeal allowed. Lord Justice Lewison gave the substantive judgment. Lord Justices McFarlane and Richards agreed. The Inspector’s decision was restored.

1. The applicable standard was that reasons must be intelligible and adequate, enabling the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and how the principal important controversial issues were resolved. Reasons need not address every material consideration. The reasoning must not create substantial doubt that the decision-maker erred in law, and a challenge requires substantial prejudice: South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33; [2004] 1 WLR 1953. The broader purpose of enabling parties to assess the implications for future applications was incorporated from Save Britain's Heritage v No 1 Poultry Limited [1991] 1 WLR 153.
2. The Inspector clearly identified the legitimate aims of protecting the character of the area, sustainability and highway safety. He concluded that refusal of permission was the only means of safeguarding those aims. Proportionality therefore did not require a choice between several possible measures. The personal circumstances relied upon could not outweigh the substantial planning harm.
3. The Inspector’s reasoning was sufficiently clear to show, at least implicitly, that even if the alleged agreement existed, it would not alter the result. A decision-maker need not resolve a disputed factual issue where the asserted facts could not affect the legally determinative outcome.
4. The alleged agreement could not bind the Council to grant planning permission because it was said to have been made by an Assistant Manager in the Environmental Health Department. It therefore could not bind the Inspector. The Article 14 complaint was also adequately addressed by the finding that the proposed comparators arose in different circumstances.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed and the Inspector’s decision restored: [2013] EWCA Civ 498.
2. Queen’s Bench Division Administrative Court: Lang J held that the Inspector had failed to give adequate reasons and quashed the decision.