Crawford-Brunt & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

For an application under section 288 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, a person will ordinarily be aggrieved where they made objections or representations during the statutory procedure preceding the challenged decision. A person who did not participate may nevertheless qualify in exceptional circumstances, such as where an inadequate description of the development prevented participation. General standing principles concerning the supervisory jurisdiction do not alter the statutory test. Adjoining ownership and concerns about environmental or planning impacts do not, without participation in the relevant appeal procedure or comparable exceptional circumstances, establish standing.

The claimants, whose properties adjoined a planning appeal site, applied under section 288 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 to challenge an Inspector’s decision granting outline planning permission. The Inspector had allowed the developer’s appeal under section 78 after the Council refused permission. Neither claimant made objections or representations during the appeal procedure or attended the inquiry. The central issue was whether ownership of adjoining properties and informal objections made before the inquiry were sufficient to make them persons aggrieved under section 288(1)(b).

1. The application was dismissed because the claimants lacked standing under section 288(1)(b) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The leading authority on “person aggrieved” was Walton v Scottish Ministers [2013] PTSR 51. The statutory test ordinarily requires consideration of whether the applicant made objections or representations during the procedure preceding the challenged decision. The relevant procedure here was the planning appeal procedure.
3. A non-participant may still be aggrieved in exceptional circumstances, including where an inadequate description of the development could have misled the person and caused them not to object. No comparable circumstances existed here. The claimants knew of the development and consciously chose not to participate because they expected the Council to present the relevant objections.
4. The broader discussion in Walton v Scottish Ministers concerning standing to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction did not alter the statutory test for persons aggrieved. Nor did observations concerning environmental standing or discretion assist the claimants.
5. Adjoining ownership, possible visibility, and concerns about noise, traffic, Green Belt development and precedent were insufficient in the circumstances. The claimants therefore had no standing, and the claim was dismissed.