Allen v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

The claimant sought judicial review under section 288 TCPA 1990 of the Secretary of State's decision dismissing an appeal against refusal of planning permission for the continued use of land as a gypsy and traveller site. The court found that the Secretary of State was entitled to disagree with the Inspector's recommendation but was required, under the inquiries rules and settled law on reasons, to identify the factual or evaluative findings with which he differed or to give adequate reasons for adopting a contrary conclusion. The Secretary of State failed to grapple with the Inspector's detailed findings about the suitability of the Meadow Lane site (noise, odour, flooding and waterlogging) and gave no evidential basis for his reliance on the council's ability to remedy those defects by February 2015. That failure to give adequate reasons caused substantial prejudice to the claimant. The Decision Letter was quashed. The court also considered but rejected wider arguments of procedural unfairness, bias and unlawfulness of recovery of jurisdiction.

The claimant, Mr Allen, and others occupied a site near Bletsoe which had temporary planning permission (expired June 2012) for use as a gypsy and traveller site. After the council refused an application under section 73 TCPA 1990 to vary the time-limited permission, the claimant appealed under section 78. The appeal was recovered to the Secretary of State who dismissed it by Decision Letter dated 1 October 2014. The claimant brought judicial review under section 288 TCPA 1990 seeking quashing of that Decision Letter.

Background and procedural posture:

• The Inspector held an inquiry, produced a detailed report recommending a further temporary permission for two years, principally because of an identified short-term unmet need for pitches and uncertainty over the suitability of a proposed alternative site known as Meadow Lane (ML).
• The Secretary of State disagreed with the Inspector's recommendation and dismissed the appeal. This claim challenges the Secretary of State's reasons for rejecting the Inspector's recommendation.

Nature of claim and relief sought: The claimant sought an order quashing the Decision Letter of 1 October 2014.

Issues before the court:

• Whether the Secretary of State had given adequate reasons and had properly engaged with the Inspector's factual findings and planning judgment about Meadow Lane;
• Whether the Secretary of State lawfully assessed and relied upon the council's ability to deliver acceptable living conditions at Meadow Lane by February 2015 without evidential basis;
• Whether Article 8 ECHR considerations and the best interests of the children had been properly treated;
• Allegations of bias and challenge to the lawfulness of the recovery of jurisdiction.

Court's reasoning:

• The court reviewed the applicable legal principles: duty to have regard to the development plan, the decision-maker's margin of judgment on planning matters, and the obligation to give adequate reasons so that affected parties are not prejudiced.
• The central question was whether the Secretary of State had properly grappled with the Inspector's factual findings and evaluative conclusions about Meadow Lane. The Inspector had recorded detailed adverse factual findings on noise, odour and waterlogging and had concluded that while Meadow Lane should not be excluded as a source of supply, its suitability should be judged after it had been in operation for a period.
• The Secretary of State accepted the Inspector's findings in many respects but nonetheless concluded that the council would meet its responsibilities to deliver acceptable living conditions by February 2015. The Decision Letter did not identify any specific factual or evaluative finding of the Inspector with which the Secretary of State disagreed nor provide an evidential basis for his contrary conclusion. That lack of engagement and reasoning meant the claimant was prejudiced.
• The court held Article 8 and children's best interests had been considered by the Secretary of State and were not determinative; those matters did not cure the shortcoming in reasoning. Wider allegations of bias and challenge to recovery of jurisdiction were rejected as misconceived in law.

Result: The Decision Letter of 1 October 2014 was quashed because the Secretary of State failed to give adequate reasons and to grapple with the Inspector's material findings about Meadow Lane, thereby prejudicing the claimant.

The claim succeeded. The court quashed the Secretary of State's Decision Letter of 1 October 2014 because the Secretary of State failed to give adequate reasons and did not properly grapple with the Inspector's material findings and evaluative conclusions about the Meadow Lane site (noise, odour, drainage/flooding and overall suitability). That failure caused prejudice to the claimant and rendered the decision unlawful. Wider allegations of bias and challenge to recovery of jurisdiction were rejected.