Thurrock Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

An application under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 288 is concerned with legal validity, not a review of planning merits. An inspector’s decision letter must be read as a whole and with reasonable flexibility. The court should identify whether the inspector understood and applied the relevant policy, rather than subjecting isolated phrases to over-technical analysis. Where the decision letter correctly states the applicable test and later reasoning is consistent with that self-direction, a reviewing court should be slow to infer legal error without evidential support. In Green Belt cases, very special circumstances require the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm to be clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The claimant council sought under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal and granting temporary permission for a gypsy and traveller site in the Green Belt.

The council alleged that the inspector had failed to give substantial weight to Green Belt harm, had failed to take account of encroachment upon the countryside, and had applied the wrong test for very special circumstances. The court had to determine whether the decision letter, read as a whole, disclosed an error of law.

1. The application was dismissed. Section 288 provides a challenge to legal validity on conventional judicial review grounds. It does not permit the court to reconsider the planning merits or the weight given to material considerations.
2. An inspector’s decision letter must be read as a whole and in a reasonably flexible manner. The relevant question is whether the reasons are intelligible and adequate on the principal important controversial issues. Isolated wording should not be subjected to excessive legalism or exegetical sophistication. The principles summarised in Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd v Secretary of State and the straightforward-reading approach in Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment were applied.
3. Ground 1 failed. Although the inspector referred at one point to the Green Belt harm carrying “some weight”, she had correctly stated the policy test and later expressly directed herself that substantial weight should be given to Green Belt harm. The decision letter therefore disclosed no failure to apply the policy.
4. Ground 2 failed. The inspector had identified loss of openness as involving temporary encroachment upon the countryside. Her later reference to erosion of openness showed that she remained aware of the relevant consideration. The absence of the word “encroachment” from the final balance did not establish that it had been ignored.
5. Ground 3 failed. The inspector correctly stated that very special circumstances would exist only where harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm was clearly outweighed by other considerations. Her subsequent balancing exercise assessed whether those circumstances existed; it did not treat very special circumstances as a separate item to be weighed. The omission of the word “clearly” immediately before “outweigh” in the concluding paragraph did not demonstrate a different legal test, particularly in light of the correct self-directions elsewhere. The caution in MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department was applied.

The judgment describes the claimant’s refusal of planning permission, the second defendant’s appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and the inspector’s decision allowing that appeal. The High Court dismissed the subsequent section 288 challenge.