Waverley Borough Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

In a challenge under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the court must identify a genuine legal error in the decision-maker’s treatment of planning considerations. An Inspector’s decision is read fairly and as a whole, with appropriate respect given to evaluative planning judgment, particularly where the Inspector has conducted a site visit and assessed the evidence first-hand. Separate planning exercises must not be treated as inconsistent merely because they concern related matters. Reasons are adequate where they identify the principal controversial issues and explain the conclusions sufficiently to remove any real doubt about what was decided.

The local planning authority challenged, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an Inspector’s decision allowing an appeal and granting outline planning permission for up to 53 dwellings at Dunsfold.

The challenge concerned the Inspector’s assessment of the development’s effect on the Surrey Hills National Landscape through its setting. The authority argued that the Inspector had failed to take account of his separate finding that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area, and had failed to give adequate reasons. The central issue was whether the decision disclosed a legal error.

1. Claim dismissed. The Claimant did not establish any failure to take account of a material consideration, inadequacy of reasons, or other legal error.
2. The Inspector’s assessment of the development’s relationship with the Surrey Hills National Landscape was a distinct exercise from his assessment of its wider effect on the character and appearance of the area. The two conclusions were not inherently inconsistent.
3. Reading the decision fairly and as a whole, the Inspector considered the relevant matters under the third sentence of paragraph 182 of the NPPF. He assessed the site’s containment, topography, vegetation, distance from the National Landscape, the scale and design of the development, and the scope for control at the reserved matters stage.
4. The Inspector was entitled to reach his own evaluative conclusion based on the inquiry evidence and site visit. The court should not engage in hypercritical scrutiny or substitute its own planning judgment, particularly where the challenge is in substance disagreement with the Inspector’s assessment.
5. The decision adequately explained why the development would not adversely affect the National Landscape through its setting, while separately explaining the harm to local character and appearance. The reasons identified the principal controversial issues and made the Inspector’s conclusions clear.

Permission to proceed with the section 288 claim was granted by Lang J on 25 July 2024. This judgment determined the first-instance claim.