Robert Hunter v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities & Anor

On a statutory challenge to a planning inspector’s decision, the High Court reviews legality rather than the planning merits. The inspector’s decision letter is read flexibly and need give intelligible and adequate reasons on the principal controversial issues.

Where planning policy requires the future economic viability of a proposed rural-worker enterprise to be demonstrated by a sound business plan, the assessment is objective. An applicant’s assumptions about unpaid labour do not prevent an inspector making a reasonable allowance for additional labour costs on the evidence. Disagreement with that assessment is not an error of law.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an appeal decision dismissing his appeal against the deemed refusal of permission for a three-year temporary dwelling for a rural worker on agricultural land.

Permission to proceed was granted only on whether the inspector had lawfully concluded that the claimant had failed to demonstrate the future economic viability required by criterion (f) of policy H3 of the emerging Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. The claimant argued that the inspector had misunderstood the labour requirement, relied on an unsupported agricultural wage figure and acted procedurally unfairly.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court’s role under section 288 was confined to legality. It could not re-evaluate the planning merits or substitute its own assessment of the enterprise’s viability for that of the inspector.
2. The claimant, as appellant, bore the burden of proving his case to the inspector. Policy H3 required criteria (a) to (e) for all rural-worker dwelling proposals, with additional criteria (f) and (g) applying to temporary dwellings.
3. The financial viability assessment under policy H3(f) was properly treated as objective. The approach promoted consistency and prevented distortion by particular, difficult-to-verify assumptions.
4. The inspector lawfully considered the financial projections, projected herd size, likely labour requirement, allowance for paid labour, average agricultural wage and cost of the dwelling. He was entitled to conclude that a business plan assuming little or no cost for additional agricultural labour was not viable, even though the claimant relied on unpaid family assistance.
5. The hearing procedure was not procedurally unfair. Financial viability had been identified in advance as a main issue, and the claimant had an opportunity to respond or obtain specialist evidence.
6. The three-year temporary nature of the proposal did not remove the need for a forward-looking viability assessment. A temporary dwelling associated with an unsustainable enterprise could remain unacceptable in planning terms.
7. The inspector’s conclusions were rational and adequately reasoned. The unchallenged findings that criterion (d) and other landscape policies were not satisfied would also have justified dismissal, but that alternative basis was unnecessary.

The claim challenged the planning inspector’s appeal decision dated 23 August 2021. Permission was refused on five grounds by Choudhury J on 14 June 2022. On renewal, James Strachan QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, refused permission on Ground 1 but granted permission on Ground 2. The present court dismissed the claim.