Villages Action Group & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

In a planning decision, the decision-maker must take account of material considerations, but need only address the main or principal important controversial issues in the reasons. The omission of a matter from a decision letter does not, by itself, establish that it was overlooked. An emerging neighbourhood plan may be material, with the weight given to it depending on its stage of preparation, unresolved objections and consistency with national policy. A party to a planning appeal must place the relevant material before the inspector. Where it fails to do so, and no specific statutory duty requires consideration of the matter, the inspector will not ordinarily act unlawfully by omitting it.

The claimants brought a statutory challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to the Secretary of State’s decision allowing an appeal against Arun District Council’s refusal of outline planning permission for up to 79 dwellings at Aldingbourne, West Sussex.

The challenge concerned the possible use of the appeal site for expansion of Aldingbourne Primary School. The claimants relied on an emerging Aldingbourne Neighbourhood Plan and alleged that the inspector failed to consider a material matter and failed to give adequate reasons.

1. Application dismissed. The claimants failed to establish that the inspector had erred in law or that the decision was inadequately reasoned.
2. Under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, ordinary judicial-review principles apply. A decision may be challenged for legal misdirection, irrationality, failure to consider a relevant matter or procedural impropriety, subject to substantial prejudice.
3. An emerging neighbourhood plan can be a material consideration. Under paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework, its weight depends on the stage reached, unresolved objections and consistency with the Framework. The January 2015 draft was at an early stage and attracted minimal weight.
4. A decision-maker must have regard to material considerations, but reasons need address only the main or principal important controversial issues. Failure to mention a consideration does not, without more, establish that it was overlooked.
5. A party to a planning appeal must put before the inspector the material on which it relies. The claimants had not supplied the relevant draft plan to the inspector and had not properly advanced the school-expansion point at the inquiry.
6. The school-expansion issue was not a principal important controversial issue. There was unchallenged evidence that the local education authority had no realistic proposal to expand the school onto the site and that sufficient primary-school places existed in the wider area. The omission of the school and neighbourhood plan from the decision therefore did not establish legal error.
7. The application was dismissed.