ACE Airport Parking Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

In a planning appeal, an inspector’s reasoning must be read as a whole and in a practical manner. An express reference to a policy outside the development plan does not establish an error of law where the inspector’s reasoning shows that the policy was treated as a relevant material consideration and the operative conclusion was based on the development plan.

Similarly, an inspector need not expressly refer to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 if the decision, read fairly, demonstrates that the development plan was identified, applied and given appropriate weight.

Ace Airport Parking Ltd sought permission to appeal an inspector’s decision on an appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The inspector had dismissed the challenge to the refusal of an application concerning airport car parking and related uses.

The claimant argued that the inspector had unlawfully relied on a neighbouring authority’s local plan, which was not part of the development plan for the appeal area, and had failed to determine whether the proposal accorded with the development plan as required by section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The claimant accepted the order for the costs of preparing the acknowledgement of service.

2. The inspector recognised that the Crawley Borough Local Plan was not part of the development plan for the appeal area. The inspector nevertheless treated the neighbouring authority’s comments and policy as relevant material planning considerations. Read with the subsequent reference to the development-plan policy requiring co-operation with Crawley Borough Council, the reasoning showed that the inspector was addressing the proper issue under Policy CSP16. The alleged error was therefore not arguable.

3. Although the inspector did not expressly mention section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the decision letter identified and assessed the relevant development-plan policies, including Policies CSP1, CSP12 and CSP16 and Policies DP4 and DP5. It also explained the weight given to competing policies and strategies, and concluded that the proposal was fundamentally at odds with the development plan’s car-parking and sustainable-transport aims.

4. Reading the decision letter as a whole and in a practical manner, the inspector had properly had regard to the development plan. Express reference to the statutory provision was unnecessary where the substance of the statutory duty had been performed.

This was a renewed application for permission to appeal an inspector’s decision on a section 78 appeal. The application was dismissed by the High Court.