Stop Portland Waste Incinerator v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

In a planning reasons challenge, a decision-maker need not address every aspect of a policy separately where the policy criteria and underlying spatial strategy are interrelated. The reasons must state conclusions on the principal important controversial issues and must not create substantial doubt about legal error. In applying an unallocated-site policy, the decision-maker may make a qualitative comparison with allocated sites and assess proximity alongside self-sufficiency, the waste hierarchy, environmental effects and delivery of the strategy. The weight given to those considerations is ordinarily a matter of planning judgment. A reasons challenge succeeds only where the claimant shows genuine substantial prejudice caused by inadequate reasoning.

Powerfuel Portland Limited applied for planning permission for an energy recovery facility at Portland Port. Dorset Council refused permission. The Secretary of State recovered the appeal, accepted the Inspector’s recommendation and granted permission.

Stop Portland Waste Incinerator challenged the decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, alleging inadequate reasons concerning the proximity principle in criterion (c) of Policy 4 of the Bournemouth, Christchurch, Poole and Dorset Waste Plan 2019. Lang J dismissed the claim: [2025] EWHC 777 (Admin). Permission to appeal was granted only on the reasons ground. The central issue was whether the Inspector and the Secretary of State had adequately explained their treatment of the proximity principle and the comparison between the proposed site and allocated sites.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Inspector and the Secretary of State gave adequate, indeed ample, reasons for granting planning permission and concluding that the proposal complied with Policy 4, including criterion (c), the Spatial Strategy and the proximity principle.
2. Policy 4 had to be read as an integrated and fact-sensitive policy. Its criteria overlap. Criterion (c) required consideration not only of proximity, but also of the Spatial Strategy, the waste hierarchy and other relevant objectives, including self-sufficiency. The Spatial Strategy also informed criteria (a) and (b).
3. The decision-maker was entitled to compare the proposed unallocated site with the allocated sites’ development potential, including their deliverability, capacity, Green Belt constraints and environmental effects. The proximity principle could be assessed against the existing position where allocated development had not come forward. At Canford Magna, inappropriate Green Belt development required very special circumstances clearly outweighing Green Belt and other harm, which materially affected the comparison.
4. The decision-maker could give different weight to the elements of the Spatial Strategy and reach an overall judgment on compliance. A proposal might be refused because of poor performance against one element, but balancing the elements and assessing weight were matters of planning judgment, subject only to genuine public law grounds of challenge.
5. The Inspector’s assessment that the proposal would improve the existing position, in which Dorset waste was transported elsewhere, was an application of the proximity principle. The Secretary of State lawfully adopted that reasoning. The report and decision letter had to be read fairly and as a whole; detailed cross-referencing was unnecessary.
6. The court rejected the argument that the Inspector had treated the need or capacity issue as automatically disposing of Policy 4(c). The substance of the report and decision letter showed that all relevant parts of Policy 4 had been considered. No substantial doubt about legal error or substantial prejudice was established.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed.
• High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Planning Court: Lang J dismissed the statutory review claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: [2025] EWHC 777 (Admin).