Verdin (t/a the Darnhall Estate) v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

A planning decision may be quashed under section 288 where the decision-maker applies the relevant policy irrationally or gives inadequate reasons on a principal controversial issue. Planning conditions must satisfy every applicable policy test, including necessity, relevance, enforceability, precision and reasonableness. A condition cannot be rejected on bare assertions that it is imprecise or difficult to enforce where the decision-maker identifies no rational basis for that conclusion. Reasons must enable the parties and the court to understand how the issue was resolved. The court reviews legality and rationality, not the planning merits or the weight given to competing considerations.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the Secretary of State’s dismissal of an appeal concerning outline permission for up to 184 dwellings at Darnhall School Lane, Winsford. The Secretary of State disagreed with the inspector on the weight to be given to proposed conditions concerning training and employment, local builders, local procurement and self-build housing, and dismissed the appeal.

The claimant alleged errors of law, inadequate reasons, procedural unfairness, predetermination, delay and failure to address sustainable development and neighbourhood-plan issues. The central questions were whether the Secretary of State lawfully rejected the proposed conditions and whether the reasons were adequate.

1. Statutory challenge and reasons. The court applied the principles governing section 288 challenges. Decision letters must be read fairly and flexibly, but must give intelligible and adequate reasons on the principal important controversial issues. The court does not substitute its own planning judgment or review the weight given to material considerations.
2. Planning conditions. Each proposed condition had to satisfy all six tests in the National Planning Policy Framework and associated guidance. A failure to satisfy one test was sufficient to justify rejection. The Secretary of State’s repeated statement that the conditions were not necessary to make the development acceptable did not provide intelligible support for rejecting them. Nevertheless, the self-build condition was lawfully rejected because concerns about affordability and the likely take-up of plots rationally supported the conclusion that it was unreasonable. The reasons were sufficient on that issue.
3. Training and employment condition. The proposed management-plan structure, including minimum workforce percentages, was not irrationally imprecise. There was no evidence of a practical enforcement difficulty, and the condition could be supported by monitoring arrangements and enforcement notices. The Secretary of State gave inadequate reasons for rejecting it, causing substantial prejudice.
4. Local builders and procurement conditions. Both conditions were materially related to planning and sustainable economic development. The reasons concerning relevance, precision, enforceability, detection of breaches and the availability of qualifying businesses had no rational basis on the evidence, or were inadequately explained. Grounds 3 and 4 therefore succeeded.
5. Other grounds and outcome. The Secretary of State lawfully treated the neighbourhood plan as relevant, made an adequate assessment of sustainability, and was not shown to have been biased, predetermined or procedurally unfair. The claim succeeded on grounds 2–4. The decision was quashed because the conditions were material and it could not be said what decision would have been made had they been lawfully considered.

First-instance statutory challenge under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The court quashed the Secretary of State’s decision dated 7 July 2016 dismissing the planning appeal and refusing permission.