Horada & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

A public decision-maker who rejects a planning inspector’s considered and reasoned recommendation must explain the disagreement. The reasons need not answer every paragraph or give reasons for reasons, but they must address the principal important controversial issues and reveal why the contrary conclusion was reached.

Reasons must be intelligible and adequate when read straightforwardly by people who know the factual background. A bare assertion of a different evaluative conclusion is insufficient. An affected citizen is entitled to an explanation in plain English and should not require professional interpretation to understand why the decision was made.

A local authority made a compulsory purchase order to facilitate the redevelopment of Shepherd’s Bush Market. Following a public inquiry, the inspector recommended against confirmation. She considered that the safeguards were insufficient to ensure affordable, suitable premises and the continued presence of enough existing traders to preserve the market’s character.

The Secretary of State nevertheless confirmed the order. He stated that planning conditions and an enforceable section 106 agreement provided sufficient safeguards, but did not explain why he rejected the inspector’s concerns about affordability, replacement units and the market’s arches.

The traders challenged the order under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. Following rejection of their case by Dove J in the Planning Court, they appealed on the ground that the Secretary of State had failed to give adequate reasons and that this failure substantially prejudiced them.

1. Appeal allowed. The Secretary of State failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the inspector’s recommendation. The traders were substantially prejudiced by that failure. The appropriate form of relief was left for later determination.

2. The inspector’s decisive concern was whether the available guarantees and safeguards adequately protected the financial and physical conditions required for existing traders to continue trading. Her concerns included the affordability and size of replacement premises, uncertainty about the replacement stalls and the absence of a mechanism securing refurbishment of the arches. Those matters were the principal important controversial issues, not merely subsidiary material considerations.

3. The Secretary of State was the primary decision-maker, rather than an appellate reviewer of the inspector. He did not have to respond to every step of her reasoning. The necessary particularity depended on the nature of the issues. Where, however, he rejected a considered and reasoned recommendation, he had to explain why he disagreed. That requirement was consistent with Save Britain’s Heritage v No 1 Poultry Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 153 and South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] UKHL 33.

4. The decision letter did no more than assert that the safeguards were sufficient. It did not disclose whether the Secretary of State rejected the inspector’s assessment of the existing safeguards, regarded the existing traders as unimportant, accepted a different degree of uncertainty, or considered that other mechanisms answered her concerns. A well-informed reader could not extract the elaborate reasoning advanced in court from the letter’s two critical sentences.

5. Lord Thomas CJ emphasised that reasons must be expressed in plain English which the affected citizen can understand. Familiarity with the factual background does not permit an expert decision-maker to use reasoning intelligible only through a lawyer or other professional. This need was especially important because the proposed redevelopment placed the traders’ livelihoods at risk.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the traders’ appeal. It held that the Secretary of State had failed to explain adequately why he rejected the inspector’s recommendation and that the traders had been substantially prejudiced. The form of relief was reserved.
• Planning Court, Queen’s Bench Division: Dove J rejected the challenge. He considered that the inspector had not criticised the mechanisms in the section 106 agreement and that the Secretary of State was effectively agreeing with her about those mechanisms. No citation is stated in the judgment.
• Secretary of State: Confirmed the compulsory purchase order contrary to the inspector’s recommendation.