Quarry Mews Limited v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government & Anor

Compliance with the public sector equality duty is assessed substantively and contextually. A decision letter need not expressly reproduce the statutory duty if, read fairly as a whole, it shows rigorous regard to equality impacts and sufficient enquiry. The weight given to planning considerations remains primarily a matter for the inspector’s planning judgment.

An inspector may attach limited weight to the environmental benefit of avoiding demolition where greater weight could encourage unauthorised development and undermine the enforcement regime, provided that benefit is included in the overall planning balance.

The appellant challenged an inspector’s decision dismissing its appeal under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against an enforcement notice requiring demolition of six dwellings and associated works in Oxford.

The appellant alleged breaches of the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, the requirement under article 3.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to treat the best interests of children as a primary consideration, and the proper approach to the environmental benefit of avoiding demolition.

1. Appeal dismissed. The decision letter had to be read fairly as a whole. Although the inspector did not expressly refer to the public sector equality duty in the planning balance, he had considered the occupants’ circumstances when deciding the compliance period. The context included the one-bedroom nature of the dwellings and evidence that some occupants had children. It was highly unlikely that the inspector had had proper regard at one stage but not the other.
2. The inspector’s enquiries were sufficient. His pre-inquiry note sought information about occupants’ awareness of the notice and appeal, and the material before him identified the relevant circumstances. The extent of reasonable enquiry is context-sensitive.
3. Similar reasoning applied to article 3.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The best interests of the child were a primary, but not sole, consideration, and the inspector had had sufficient regard to them.
4. The inspector was entitled to treat avoiding demolition, including disruption, pollution and waste of resources and energy, as an environmental benefit. The reference to the risk of encouraging unauthorised development concerned the weight to be given to that benefit, not its relevance. He included it in the overall balance, attached limited weight, and was entitled to conclude that the benefits did not outweigh the heritage harm.
5. Planning inspectors’ decisions must be construed flexibly. Reasons need address the main issues, not every argument, and the weight given to considerations is for the inspector subject to Wednesbury review. The parties were directed to submit a draft order and written submissions on consequential matters within 14 days of hand down.

The appellant appealed the inspector’s decision dated 6 January 2025 with permission granted by Richard Kimblen KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal.