North Norfolk District Council v Secretary of State for Housing Communities And Local Government

Where a planning appeal previously determined after an inquiry must be re-determined following quashing, a further inquiry is the normal course under the published procedural guidance. It is not mandatory. The decision-maker may adopt written representations and a site visit where, having considered the earlier inquiry material, it rationally concludes that oral testing is unnecessary and gives adequate reasons for departing from the normal procedure.

Substantial local interest may itself justify an inquiry, even where the issues are not complex, but it does not invariably require one. A quashed decision has no legal effect, yet may be read for the limited purpose of understanding the issues, provided the fresh determination proceeds independently.

The Council challenged decisions by the Planning Inspectorate concerning the procedure for re-determining two conjoined planning appeals for wind turbines. Earlier appeal decisions, made after a public inquiry, had been quashed by consent under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, leaving the appeals to be determined afresh.

The Inspectorate initially proposed a re-opened inquiry, but later decided that further written representations and an accompanied site visit would suffice. The Council sought judicial review, alleging misinterpretation of the published criteria, failure to account for the nature and complexity of the issues, increased risk of legal error, inconsistency with the earlier procedural decision, and reliance on the quashed decisions.

1. Claim dismissed. The decision to re-determine the appeals by further written representations and an accompanied site visit was lawful.
2. Under section 319A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, read with the published Procedural Guide, the decision-maker must apply the published criteria unless circumstances justify departure, in which event a reasoned explanation is required. Annex L.12.4 establishes that an appeal previously dealt with by inquiry will probably be re-opened. That is the normal course, but it does not create an inflexible rule or fetter the statutory discretion.
3. The previous inquiry was materially significant. It had generated the written and oral evidence, refined the issues, and enabled the new Inspector to assess complexity and the need for formal questioning on an informed basis. A rational conclusion that the existing material, further written representations and a site visit were sufficient could justify departure from the normal procedure.
4. Substantial local interest can, by itself, justify an inquiry under the criteria, even where the issues are not complex. It does not compel an inquiry. The Inspectorate’s reasoning on local interest was imperfect, but the fuller written procedure, the earlier inquiry material and the opportunity for further representations provided a rational basis for concluding that a further inquiry was unnecessary. Westerleigh Group Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWHC 4313 was correctly understood but did not require a different result.
5. The fresh determination had to address the appeals in their entirety. The quashed decisions themselves would have no legal effect and would not form part of the evidence base, although the underlying evidence remained available for fresh consideration. The previous decision could also be read for the limited purpose of understanding the nature of the issues. The distinction between legal nullity and non-existence for every purpose was supported by Hoffman La Roche v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295 and Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143.

The judgment is a first-instance judicial review. It records that earlier planning appeal decisions had been quashed by consent on 24 May 2017, after which the Planning Inspectorate decided that the appeals should be re-determined by written representations rather than a further inquiry.