Westerleigh Group Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Published criteria governing planning appeal procedures require judgment and common sense. They are not fully prescriptive or automatically determinative. Substantial local interest does not, by itself, require an inquiry. The decision-maker may select written representations where the planning issues can reasonably be understood from the documents and a site visit, and where formal questioning is unnecessary. Judicial review focuses on whether the criteria were considered and applied rationally and fairly. Alternative sites are generally relevant only in exceptional circumstances, particularly where the proposed development has conspicuous adverse effects and its benefits are relied on to outweigh those effects. Where those circumstances are absent, the decision-maker is not obliged to consider alternatives.

Memoria Limited applied for planning permission for a crematorium and associated facilities at Countesthorpe. Blaby District Council refused permission. The Secretary of State’s Inspector allowed Memoria’s appeal by written representations and granted conditional permission.

Westerleigh Group, which operated crematoria and was considering a competing site at Kilby, sought to quash the decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It argued that the appeal should have been determined by local inquiry because of substantial local opposition and the complexity of the planning issues, and that the Inspector had unlawfully failed to consider preferable alternative sites.

1. Claim dismissed. The Inspectorate and the Inspector had considered the published criteria governing the procedure. The Inspector’s conclusion that he had sufficient information, following the site visit and consideration of the written material, showed that he had addressed the relevant matters.
2. The criteria in Annex K were expressly non-prescriptive and required judgment informed by common sense. It was a planning judgment whether the issues were complex, whether evidence required testing by formal questioning, and whether written representations were sufficient. The Inspectorate and the Inspector had acted within the generous ambit of their discretion. Their conclusions were neither unreasonable nor irrational.
3. Substantial local interest did not make a local inquiry mandatory. The criteria permitted an inquiry to be considered in such circumstances, but required an evaluative judgment. The Inspector had expressly considered the objectors’ requests and was entitled to conclude that the material before him was sufficient.
4. Alternative sites can be a material planning consideration, but consideration of them is generally confined to exceptional circumstances. In particular, it may be relevant where the proposal has conspicuous adverse effects, those effects are justified by the need for the development, and a more appropriate alternative site may avoid them. The Inspector had made no finding of significant or conspicuous adverse effects. He was therefore not obliged to investigate alternatives.
5. Even if alternatives had required consideration, the material before the Inspector did not establish that another site was more appropriate. The procedure adopted was not unfair, including in relation to the representations concerning Great Glen and Kilby.