Seven Capital Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

Permission for statutory review will generally be refused where the proposed grounds have no realistic prospect of success. An inspector need not assess an alternative planning condition that was neither sought nor pursued, particularly where the authority had explained why it was unsuitable and that position was not contested.

Reasons are legally adequate if they intelligibly explain the conclusion reached in the context of the decision as a whole. The decision-maker need not answer every submission separately.

An academic issue should not proceed to a substantive hearing merely to obtain an authoritative ruling where it had no practical significance to the decision. A compelling or exceptional reason is required, applying the judicial review approach assumed in this case.

The claimant developer sought permission for a two-year meanwhile use of a site for artist studios and exhibition space. The local planning authority’s determination was treated as timed out, and the claimant appealed to a planning inspector.

The inspector dismissed the appeal and refused permission. He found conflict with policies concerning the priority for residential redevelopment, insufficient fire-safety detail, and potential implications for community infrastructure levy contributions. He concluded that the planning balance was decisively against permission, even if the levy issue were ignored.

The claimant renewed its application for permission for statutory review, alleging inadequate reasons concerning a shorter temporary permission, fire-safety matters and the community infrastructure levy. The central questions were whether the grounds were realistically arguable and whether an academic levy issue justified a substantive hearing.

1. The renewed application was dismissed. The costs orders previously made by Lang J were left standing.

2. The reduced-period challenge had no realistic prospect of success. The claimant sought only a two-year permission and advanced no alternative or fallback proposal. Although the local planning authority had referred to a permission of at most 15 months, it had also explained that such a period would make no sense for a proposal of this scale. That position was not contested. In those circumstances, the inspector adequately explained why the harm caused by the two-year period could not be satisfactorily overcome by condition.

3. The fire-safety reasons were adequate and intelligible. Read as a whole, the decision addressed the temporal question whether matters could be deferred, the adequacy of the information supplied, and the significance of the Fire Statement. The inspector was entitled to reject the contention that sufficient detail had been provided to enable the required assessment. He was not required to resolve every point made in closing submissions or to defer the assessment to a building control officer.

4. The community infrastructure levy issue could not justify permission for statutory review. The inspector had attributed little weight to the issue and had expressly found that the planning balance remained decisively against permission without it. Assuming in the claimant’s favour that statutory review should be approached like judicial review, there was no compelling or exceptional reason to determine an academic issue whose resolution could not affect the outcome. The issue should instead be considered in a case where it is legally and factually material and capable of making a practical difference, applying Heathrow Hub Ltd v Transport Secretary [2020] EWCA Civ 213.

First-instance application for permission for statutory review of a planning inspector’s decision. The inspector dismissed the planning appeal and refused permission. The High Court dismissed the renewed application for permission.