Save Our Greenhills Community Group v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors

In a statutory planning challenge, procedural fairness requires an affected participant to know the case to be met and have a reasonable opportunity to make representations. An amendment made before the local planning authority’s decision does not automatically attract appeal-stage consultation, particularly where the amended plans were publicly available and formed the basis of the authority’s consideration. An Inspector is not irrationally required to obtain further environmental evidence merely because amended plans contain changes, if the Inspector reasonably considers the existing material sufficient. A legitimate expectation requires a clear promise applicable to the circumstances. A decision letter must be read fairly and as a whole. Where the Inspector reasonably finds no impact on the setting of a heritage asset, no further assessment of harm to its significance under section 66 is required.

The claimant, a local amenity group, challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an Inspector’s decision allowing an appeal and granting permission for a solar farm. The challenge concerned the acceptance of amended plans before the local planning authority’s decision, the absence of further consultation and environmental evidence, reliance on a section 106 obligation concerning sustainable drainage, and the Inspector’s assessment of heritage settings.

The court conducted a rolled-up hearing addressing both permission and the merits. The central issues were whether the appeal process was procedurally unfair, whether the Inspector failed to make sufficient enquiries, whether the drainage arrangements justified relief, and whether the heritage assessment lawfully applied section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

1. Outcome. Permission was granted on Grounds 1, 2 and 4, but each ground was dismissed on its merits. Permission was refused on Ground 3. The challenge therefore failed.

2. Fairness and legitimate expectation. The increase in solar panels was not specifically identified in the appeal documentation, but the amended plan and accompanying email had been publicly available. The amended plan was used for the local authority committee presentation and site visit, and the claimant had an opportunity to comment during the appeal. That opportunity satisfied the applicable requirements of procedural fairness. The PINS guidance did not create a legitimate expectation of consultation because it concerned amendments made after the local authority’s decision or during an appeal, whereas the amendment here preceded the local authority’s decision.

3. Further enquiry. The Inspector was an expert tribunal making a de novo planning assessment. Whether the amended layout required further reports or evidence was a matter for his judgment. It was not irrational to conclude that the existing environmental information remained sufficient and that the changes did not require further investigation.

4. Drainage. Drainage was not a principal controversial issue, and neither decision-maker had considered a condition securing the conceptual sustainable drainage scheme necessary. The later section 106 obligation preserved the essential drainage principles and provided storage materially exceeding the calculated runoff. The court therefore concluded that the decision would inevitably have been the same and that Ground 3 could not succeed.

5. Heritage assets and reasons. The Inspector’s decision letter had to be read fairly and as a whole. Properly read, the Inspector did not find that the appeal site formed part of the rural setting of the heritage assets. He assessed the visual relationship and concluded that the development would have no impact on their settings. There was consequently no need for a further assessment of harm to significance, and no error in the application of section 66 or the relevant national and local policies.

The judgment does not state a prior court appeal. It concerns a statutory challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to an Inspector’s decision dated 16 March 2016 allowing a planning appeal and granting permission.