Broadview Energy Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Ministers who determine planning matters may be lobbied by constituency MPs, including through informal parliamentary encounters. Such lobbying is not unlawful merely because the MP supports or opposes the proposal. The decision-maker must act fairly and comply with applicable statutory procedures and propriety guidance.

Further consultation is required only where post-inquiry material is new or material and causes the Secretary of State to disagree with the inspector for that reason. Repetition of matters already ventilated at the inquiry does not ordinarily require circulation. Apparent bias is assessed by the fair-minded and informed observer, considering the whole context. Open constituency lobbying, ministerial safeguards, official advice and a decision based on independent planning reasons did not establish bias or unfairness.

The claimant developer sought to quash, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State’s refusal of planning permission for a five-turbine wind farm. A planning inspector had recommended permission after a public inquiry, but the Secretary of State recovered the appeal and refused permission after disagreeing with the inspector on the planning balance and the weight given to heritage harm.

A constituency MP had corresponded with Ministers and made representations during the process, including informal conversations in the House of Commons. The claimant argued that the correspondence and conversations were undisclosed, caused procedural unfairness, created actual or apparent bias, and breached planning propriety guidance.

1. Application dismissed. The Secretary of State’s decision was not unlawful through procedural unfairness, bias or breach of propriety standards.
2. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State was the primary decision-maker after recovering the appeal. The inspector’s report was the starting point, but the Secretary of State was required to exercise his own planning judgment and was not bound to follow the inspector.
3. The common law requires a party to know the opposing case and have a reasonable opportunity to address it. The claimant knew the objectors’ case, and the matters raised in the MP’s correspondence had already been ventilated at the public inquiry. The informal meetings therefore caused no procedural unfairness.
4. Rule 17(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 did not require further consultation. The correspondence raised no new matters and was not the reason for the Secretary of State’s disagreement with the inspector. Paragraph 4 of the planning propriety guidance was to be read consistently with that rule and did not require repeated representations to be circulated.
5. Constituency lobbying of Ministers is part of parliamentary democracy. It is lawful provided that Ministers act fairly and within the standards imposed by the Ministerial Code, the inquiry rules and the planning propriety guidance. The fair-minded and informed observer, considering the full context, would not conclude that there was a real possibility of ministerial bias. There was also no evidence of actual bias.
6. The Secretary of State’s decision was based on identified planning considerations, including the conflict with the development plan and the harm to heritage assets, rather than on the MP’s representations. The application to quash the decision was dismissed.