Macarthur & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

A mistake of fact may constitute an error of law where it gives rise to unfairness. The claimant must establish an existing fact or item of evidence that was uncontentious and objectively verifiable, was not caused by the claimant, and played a material part in the decision-making. A planning inspector is generally not required to explain in detail why particular expert evidence was accepted or rejected. Reasons are sufficient where, read straightforwardly, they identify the principal controversial issues, explain the decision, and do not create a substantial doubt that the inspector misunderstood the law or an important matter.

The claimants challenged two planning appeal decisions allowing wind-farm developments at Chiplow and Jack’s Lane. The applications were brought under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The claimants alleged that the inspector had materially misunderstood an expert’s oral evidence concerning the effect of the developments on Bloodgate Hillfort, and had failed to give adequate reasons. The Secretary of State initially consented to quashing the decisions, but the court heard opposition from the developers before determining whether either ground was made out.

1. Mistake of fact. The court accepted that a material mistake of fact giving rise to unfairness can amount to an error of law. The relevant requirements identified in E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] QB 1044 were not a precise code, but establishing the alleged mistake remained fundamental. The evidence about the expert’s oral evidence was conflicting, ambiguous and unsupported by a reliable contemporaneous record. The claimants therefore failed to establish an uncontentious and objectively verifiable mistake.
2. The court accepted, although the point was academic, that failure to record or understand evidence correctly could amount to a material error of law. That principle did not assist the claimants because no mistake had been proved.
3. Adequacy of reasons. Under rule 19 of the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors)(Inquiries Procedure)(England) Rules 2000, the inspector had to give intelligible and adequate reasons. Applying South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953, the decision sufficiently explained the inspector’s conclusions on the effect of the developments on Bloodgate Hillfort and on the balance between identified harm and wider environmental and economic benefits.
4. An inspector exercising planning judgment is not generally required to summarise all expert evidence or explain in detail why one expert was preferred. The decision did not create a substantial doubt that the inspector had misunderstood the evidence. His reference to agreement with the expert did not impose an additional duty to analyse the expert’s oral and written evidence separately.
5. The claim was dismissed. The Secretary of State’s concession was wrongly made and did not determine the result.