Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (Brecon & Radnor Branch) v The Welsh Ministers

At the permission stage of a planning statutory review, the court must scrutinise proposed grounds rigorously and ask whether they have a realistic prospect of success. A policy requiring exceptional circumstances before permission is granted requires more than a simple balancing of benefits and harm. Particular benefits may nevertheless constitute exceptional circumstances. Whether they do so is a matter of judgment for the decision-maker. A finite development lifespan may be material. A reasons challenge fails where the decision letter identifies the principal issues and enables an informed reader to understand the decision’s basis.

The claimant sought renewed permission under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to challenge the Welsh Ministers’ decision allowing an appeal against refusal of planning permission for seven wind turbines near Llandegley, Powys. The Inspector had recommended dismissal, but the Welsh Ministers granted permission.

The proposed statutory review alleged that the decision-maker had misconstrued the requirement for exceptional circumstances in paragraph 6.5.5 of Planning Policy Wales, had acted irrationally, and had given inadequate reasons.

1. Permission threshold. The proposed grounds had to have a realistic prospect of success and required rigorous scrutiny.
2. Exceptional circumstances. Paragraph 6.5.5 of Planning Policy Wales required more than merely balancing benefits against harm. Significant benefits in a particular case could constitute exceptional circumstances.
3. Application. Read as a whole, the decision letter showed that the Welsh Ministers understood that requirement. Their conclusion that the renewable-energy benefits constituted exceptional circumstances was a judgment open to them and was not irrational. The development’s finite lifespan was capable of being a material factor.
4. Reasons. Applying South Bucks DC v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953, the reasons challenge was not arguable. The principal issues were identified and the decision’s basis was sufficiently clear to an informed reader.
5. Outcome. Permission to bring the statutory review was refused. The court gave a provisional view that the Aarhus costs cap limited the total costs recoverable from the claimant and granted liberty to apply concerning costs.

This was a renewed application for permission to bring a planning statutory review. Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Lewis J. The present court refused permission after the oral renewal hearing.