Eshton Gregory (Hebden Bridge) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor

An appeal under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is not an opportunity to reargue planning merits. The court may intervene where the decision-maker takes account of an immaterial consideration, fails to consider a material one, misinterprets planning policy, acts irrationally or gives inadequate reasons.

A planning decision letter must be read as a whole, sensibly and in context. Reasons need address the principal controversial issues, but need not mention every material consideration or use a particular verbal formula. An inspector may rely on the material before her and the impressions gained during a site visit.

The claimant sought permission for a mixed-use development on the former Hebden Bridge Fire Station site, including a supermarket, apartments and townhouses. Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council refused permission on highway-safety and traffic grounds. On appeal under section 78(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State’s Inspector dismissed the appeal.

The claimant challenged the Inspector’s decision under section 288, alleging failures to apply the NPPF severity test, assess policy consistency and sustainability, consider an earlier permission, examine mitigation by conditions, and give adequate reasons. The central issue was whether the Decision Letter disclosed an error of law or irrationality.

1. Appeal dismissed. The application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was dismissed.
2. The High Court’s role was supervisory. It could not substitute its own planning judgment for that of the Inspector. Intervention was justified only for an error of law, consideration of an immaterial matter, failure to consider a material matter, irrationality or inadequate reasons.
3. The Decision Letter had to be read as a whole, straightforwardly and in context. Reasons were required to make the decision intelligible and to disclose how the principal controversial issues were resolved. They did not need to refer to every material consideration or reproduce every relevant policy expression.
4. The Inspector had regard to the NPPF and to the transport consequences of the proposal. Her description of the highway effects as significant and harmful, together with her conclusion that those effects outweighed the scheme’s benefits, showed that she had not overlooked the policy framework merely because she did not use the word severe.
5. The Inspector was entitled to conclude that the proposal conflicted with policies BE5 and S2 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan and that the identified benefits did not outweigh the highway harm. The expired 2010 permission, possible traffic controls and the claimant’s mitigation submissions were matters for her planning judgment. The Decision Letter, read with the material before her and her site visit, disclosed no unlawfulness, irrationality or substantial prejudice.

The judgment states that the Inspector dismissed the claimant’s planning appeal in a Decision Letter dated 21 May 2015. The High Court dismissed the subsequent section 288 application.