Martin v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

When determining the effect of development on heritage assets, a decision-maker must have sufficient information to assess each asset’s significance, the contribution made by its setting, and the development’s likely impact. The information required is case-specific. Neither the policy in paragraphs 128 and 129 of the National Planning Policy Framework nor relevant guidance prescribes a fixed form or quantity of evidence.

The sufficiency of information is ordinarily a means to making the planning judgment, not a separate principal issue requiring express treatment. If the decision-maker gives coherent reasons addressing the asset’s significance, setting and likely harm, it is necessarily implicit that the information was regarded as adequate. A planning inspector’s judgment that there is no harm will rarely be disturbed absent an error of law or irrationality.

The claimant challenged, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal and granting permission for a 35-metre wind turbine at Beckwell Farm, Devon.

The local planning authority had refused permission partly because, on the information submitted, it was not satisfied that there would be no significant harm to the settings of Castle Park Camp scheduled monument, Brentor Church, and Downhouse. English Heritage had also sought further information. The claimant argued that the inspector had failed to give adequate reasons and had failed to take account of paragraphs 128 and 129 of the NPPF and relevant heritage guidance.

The central issue was whether the inspector could lawfully conclude that the heritage assets would not be harmed without separately explaining why the information before him was sufficient.

1. The application was dismissed. The inspector’s decision was lawful.
2. The inspector was required to assess whether the proposed turbine would harm the setting and significance of the relevant heritage assets and, if harm existed, whether the benefits of the proposal outweighed it. For listed buildings, he had to comply with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, giving special regard to preservation and attaching considerable importance and weight to any finding of harm. The scheduled monument’s inclusion in the statutory schedule identified it as a heritage asset of national importance.
3. The policy in paragraphs 128 and 129 of the NPPF and the relevant guidance were pragmatic rather than prescriptive. They did not require a particular assessment methodology, number of viewpoints, lens, photomontages or other form of evidence. The amount of information required depended on the circumstances. The decision-maker could obtain a sufficient picture from the whole evidential material, including representations and a site visit.
4. The sufficiency of information was not, on these facts, a separate principal important controversial issue. It was inherent in the inspector’s assessment of the effects on the heritage assets. Having addressed the significance, setting, topography, distance, visibility and likely effects for Castle Park Camp, Brentor Church and Downhouse, the inspector had necessarily concluded that the information was adequate. He was not required to spell that out separately.
5. The inspector’s findings that there would be no harm to the settings or significance of the three assets were planning judgments. They were coherent, adequately reasoned and not irrational. He was entitled to disagree with the concerns of the local planning authority and English Heritage, and was not required to refer expressly to every item of policy or guidance. The challenge therefore failed on both grounds.

First-instance judicial review challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The inspector’s appeal decision allowing planning permission was upheld.