Trafford Borough Council v (Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

In a planning challenge under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court must distinguish the interpretation of planning policy, which is a matter of law, from its application to the facts, which is ordinarily a matter for the planning decision-maker. Development-plan policies must be considered as a whole; a proposal need not comply with every individual policy if it accords with the plan overall. Where evidence is uncertain, the decision-maker may balance that uncertainty against policy support for the development, provided the relevant policies and material considerations are properly understood and addressed. Planning judgments concerning the weight of competing considerations are reviewable only on orthodox public-law grounds. Decision letters must be read fairly and as a whole.

Trafford Borough Council challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the Secretary of State’s decision allowing an appeal by Peel Energy (Barton) Limited against refusal of planning permission for a 20-megawatt biomass-fuelled renewable energy plant.

The challenge concerned alleged errors in the treatment of waste-wood supply, the waste hierarchy, combined heat and power, the development plan and the adequacy of reasons. The central questions were whether the Inspector and Secretary of State had misunderstood or failed to apply relevant policies, and whether their conclusions were irrational or inadequately reasoned.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Secretary of State’s decision was not shown to contain an error of law, irrationality, failure to take account of a material consideration or inadequate reasons.
2. Under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court reviews legality rather than planning merits. Policy interpretation is a legal question, but applying policy to the facts and assigning weight to material considerations are matters for the planning decision-maker unless irrational or perverse.
3. The Inspector had properly addressed the uncertainty surrounding sustainable waste-wood supplies. He was entitled to reject both the developer’s claim that supply was clear-cut and the Council’s contrary case that supply was plainly insufficient. He could conclude that the proposal would divert waste wood from landfill, while remaining uncertain whether existing capacity exceeded sustainable supply or whether higher-grade waste would be diverted from reuse.
4. Development-plan policies had to be read as a whole. A proposal need not comply with every policy. The Inspector was entitled to find broad compliance with the development plan and to give substantial weight to renewable-energy and waste-diversion benefits, notwithstanding uncertainty about fuel supply.
5. Policy 8 of the Greater Manchester Joint Waste Development Plan Document contemplated combined heat and power but did not make firm CHP proposals an absolute precondition to permission. The absence of firm proposals meant that there was not full compliance, but the decision-maker could conclude that this did not create a material conflict with the development plan when balanced against the location’s potential for heat use and the other policies supporting the scheme.
6. The Inspector’s and Secretary of State’s reasons were intelligible when the Decision Letter and Inspector’s Report were read together. The references to public perception did not show that the waste-supply evidence had been treated merely as a perception issue. The Secretary of State had adequately considered the relevant reasoning and reached a lawful planning judgment.

This was a first-instance judicial review claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The court dismissed the claim.