UK Coal Mining Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

When a development plan creates a negative presumption, the decision-maker must first determine independently whether the conditions displacing that presumption exist. The presumption cannot determine its own applicability. Local views may receive significant evidential weight, but they cannot replace objective evaluation of the policy criteria. A decision-maker must accurately state and apply the central development plan policy with sufficient clarity to show that the case has been fairly considered. Failure to do so is a material error of law warranting quashing.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an Inspector’s dismissal of its appeal against refusal of planning permission for an open-cast coal mine. The decision was governed by section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Policy M7 of the Minerals Local Plan. Policy M7 contained a presumption against open-cast mining unless the proposal was environmentally acceptable or its local or community benefits clearly outweighed its adverse impacts. The central issue was whether the Inspector had correctly understood and applied that policy.

1. The claim succeeded on ground (a), and the Inspector’s decision was quashed.
2. Policy M7 required a sequential analysis. The decision-maker had first to determine, independently of the negative presumption, whether the criteria in paragraph (a) or (b) were satisfied. The presumption could then be applied or rebutted as appropriate. Its existence could not be determined by the effect of the presumption itself.
3. Central government advice in MPG3 required particular attention to the environmental and amenity effects of open-cast mining and indicated evidential weighting in favour of local assessment. That weighting did not make the local authority’s assessment the trigger for the presumption.
4. The Inspector materially misinterpreted Policy M7 by treating the mineral planning authority’s finding of environmental harm as activating the presumption. The decision letter therefore assessed the proposal against an assumed presumption instead of first deciding whether it arose.
5. The benefits and adverse impacts under Policy M7(b) required an objective assessment, giving considerable weight to local views and considering the specified policy matters. Local opposition could not substitute for that assessment.
6. The error was fundamental. The court declined to uphold the decision despite the other grounds not independently warranting quashing, because it was not suitable for the court to reconstruct the amenity and landscape assessment.