Ockham Parish Council v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors

In a planning judicial review, the court must read the decision letter fairly and as a whole. A decision-maker need address the principal important controversial issues, rather than every material consideration or argument. Matters of planning judgment, including the evaluation of evidence and the planning balance, belong to the inspector and are reviewable only on ordinary public-law grounds, including Wednesbury irrationality. Development-plan policies must be interpreted together and may pull in different directions; overall compliance is a matter of planning judgment once the policies are correctly understood. The same rationality standard applies to a competent authority’s assessment under regulation 63 of the The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and to challenges concerning unreasonable behaviour in an inspector’s costs jurisdiction.

The claimant renewed an application for permission to bring a claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The proposed claim challenged an inspector’s decision granting planning permission on appeal for a major mixed development at Wisley Airfield, after the local planning authority failed to determine the application.

The grounds concerned access and traffic, the treatment of cycling-policy requirements, the assessment of effects on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area under regulation 63 of the The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and the inspector’s costs decision. Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Lang J on 16 September 2024. The issue was whether any proposed ground was arguable with a realistic prospect of success.

1. Permission refused. The renewed application for permission to challenge the planning decision and the costs decision was refused.
2. The inspector’s decision had to be read fairly and as a whole. Her statutory duty was to have regard to material considerations, including relevant development-plan policies, but she was required to give reasons only sufficient to enable an informed reader to understand her conclusions on the principal important controversial issues. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v The Environment Secretary [2017] PTSR 1091 supported that approach (paras [10]–[11]).
3. The challenge to the access arrangements and trip-generation analysis was not arguable. The inspector understood policy A35, treated the western access as the primary access, and was entitled to take account of detailed design and reserved-matters controls. Her treatment of office-trip generation was an evaluation of evidence and planning judgment, not an error of law (paras [15]–[21]).
4. The inspector was entitled to rely on the county council’s commitment to promote traffic regulation orders, while recognising that their making could not be guaranteed. The uncertainty was a matter for planning judgment and did not make the decision irrational (paras [22]–[29]).
5. Policies A35 and ID9 were complementary. The inspector correctly treated LTN 1/20 as guidance to be applied reasonably and realistically, while recognising site-specific constraints. Development-plan policies may conflict to some degree, and overall compliance remained a matter for the planning decision-maker under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (paras [30]–[38]).
6. The regulation 63 assessment was reviewable on the Wednesbury standard. The inspector had rationally considered nitrogen deposition, future reductions, land management, bird populations and the extent of affected heathland. Her conclusion that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA was adequately reasoned and not arguably irrational (paras [39]–[45]).
7. In the costs jurisdiction, unreasonable behaviour was judged by the ordinary standard of reasonableness. The inspector was particularly well placed to assess the conduct of parties and witnesses at the inquiry, and her findings were adequately reasoned and not arguably irrational (paras [47]–[50]).

The claimant’s application for permission to bring a section 288 claim was refused on the papers by Lang J on 16 September 2024.

High Court (Planning Court): the renewed application was refused. The proposed challenges to both the planning decision and the costs decision were held to be unarguable.