Arsenal Football Club Plc v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

Under Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, section 38(6), the development plan is the starting point and must receive statutory priority. Where its policies pull in different directions, the decision-maker must assess the proposal against the plan as a whole and decide which policies should carry greatest weight. A planning decision must be read fairly, in good faith and as a whole, rather than subjected to excessively legalistic or linear analysis. A decision is lawful where its reasoning shows that the relevant policies were considered, their competing weight was resolved, and the overall conformity question was addressed, even if the conclusion appears before all supporting policies are discussed.

Arsenal challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 a Planning Inspector’s decision dated 16 January 2014. The Inspector had dismissed the club’s appeal against refusal of an application under section 73 to vary stadium conditions, so as to increase permitted music concerts from three to six and Sunday major events from one to three.

The challenge alleged an error under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The club argued that the Inspector had treated conflict with amenity policies as overall conflict with the development plan without properly considering policies supporting economic and cultural activity.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Inspector had lawfully dismissed the appeal against refusal of the proposed variations to the stadium conditions.
2. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 makes the development plan the starting point and gives it priority unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The decision-maker must generally decide whether the proposal accords with the development plan.
3. Where policies within the plan point in different directions, the decision-maker must consider the plan as a whole and determine which policies should receive greater weight. The court must not impose a strained interpretation designed to produce complete harmony between competing policies.
4. The Inspector had considered all relevant policies, including the amenity and noise policies in Islington’s Development Management Policies, the economic and cultural policies in the Core Strategy and London Plan, and the policy supporting public houses. He was entitled to give greatest weight to the more specific amenity policies, which he found were breached, while recognising the economic and cultural benefits.
5. The Inspector’s decision letter had to be read in the context of the case presented and as a whole. It was artificial to treat paragraph [24], where he stated that the proposal did not accord with the development plan, as a final conclusion reached before consideration of the supporting policies. Read with paragraph [52], the letter showed that he had reached an overall assessment.
6. Planning decisions are not to be examined with excessive legalism. They must be read fairly and in good faith. The Inspector’s conclusion that the economic and cultural benefits did not outweigh the significant harm to residents or the conflict with the amenity policies disclosed no error of law.

The judgment does not state a prior appellate history. It records a challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to the Planning Inspector’s decision letter dated 16 January 2014.