RWE Innogy UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

In planning decisions, the weight given to a material consideration is for the decision-maker, provided the consideration is properly identified and taken into account. Statutory consultees have no automatic entitlement to great or significant weight, although their statutory expertise and responsibilities may be relevant to the weight reasonably given to their views. An environmental statement’s methodology informs decision-making but does not determine the planning judgment. Reasons must intelligibly address the principal controversial issues and disclose how material legal and factual issues were resolved. A decision-maker may accept the underlying facts while reaching a different evaluative conclusion as to the degree of harm.

The claimant challenged the Secretary of State’s refusal of planning permission for ten wind turbines and associated infrastructure at East Heslerton, Ryedale. The Secretary of State had recovered the planning appeal and rejected the inspector’s recommendation to allow it.

The challenge concerned the assessment of effects on the North York Moors National Park, although the development was outside the Park, and the effect on the setting of St Andrew’s Church, a Grade I listed building. The claimant alleged failure to take account of material considerations, irrationality and inadequate reasons.

1. Application dismissed. The Secretary of State’s decision was lawful.
2. The weight given to material considerations was a matter for the decision-maker once those considerations had been properly identified and taken into account. There was no general legal principle requiring great or significant weight to be given to the responses of statutory consultees. Their statutory functions and expertise were relevant context, and the adequacy of the reasoning could be scrutinised through the decision letter.
3. The Secretary of State had regard to the evidence concerning the North York Moors National Park, including the competing consultation responses and the inspector’s conclusions. His acceptance of the National Park Authority’s assessment, and his conclusion that the proposal would harm public enjoyment of the Park’s special qualities, were rational evaluative judgments.
4. The reasons requirement in planning cases was governed by the principles stated in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953. Reasons had to be intelligible and adequate, explain the decision on the principal controversial issues, and disclose how material legal or factual issues were resolved. They need not address every material consideration.
5. An environmental statement was environmental information and a decision-making tool. Its methodology was helpful and transparent, but its conclusions did not constitute the planning decision. The Secretary of State was entitled to accept the factual material while concluding that the harm to the church’s setting was greater than the assessment described as minor. He was not required to re-score the methodology.
6. Having regard to section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Secretary of State lawfully attached considerable importance and weight to preserving the setting of St Andrew’s Church. His reasons adequately explained the assessment of harm and its role in the planning balance.

The Secretary of State recovered the planning appeal and issued the challenged decision on 27 May 2014. This was a first-instance judicial review of that decision.