NG8 2RJ Limited v The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

In a planning reasons challenge, an inspector need explain the principal important controversial issue and the essential reasoning leading to the decision. The inspector need not provide a forensic analysis of every argument, item of evidence, or subsidiary issue, nor give reasons for reasons. The required detail depends on the nature of the decision and its context. A decision is lawful where its reasoning is intelligible and adequate and does not create substantial doubt that the decision-maker misunderstood the policy or acted irrationally. It was sufficient here to identify a possibility that Japanese Knotweed could be removed or better managed without the proposed development.

The claimant challenged, under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, an inspector’s dismissal of its appeal against refusal of planning permission for two dwellings. The development was intended to generate funds for eradicating Japanese Knotweed and creating a publicly accessible woodland nature park.

Permission was granted on a limited reasons ground concerning the inspector’s reduced weight for the benefits of Knotweed eradication and management. The central issue was whether the decision letter adequately explained why those benefits were not entirely dependent on the development and why they did not outweigh the harm to a green infrastructure asset and local wildlife site.

1. The claim was dismissed. The inspector’s decision letter gave adequate and intelligible reasons for dismissing the planning appeal.
2. The principal important controversial issue was whether the benefits of the development, including Knotweed eradication, clearly outweighed the harm caused by the development. The inspector identified that issue, considered the relevant policies, assessed the harm, and then assessed the benefits.
3. The inspector accepted that eradication was challenging and costly and that removal would benefit biodiversity, habitat enhancement and prevention of spread. She also observed that the landowner had obligations to prevent spread to neighbouring land, even without the development. Her conclusion that removal and better management were not entirely dependent on the proposal conveyed a possibility, rather than a finding that those obligations completely answered the claimant’s case.
4. The inspector was not required to identify every obligation, assess the practical effectiveness of each enforcement regime, resolve the expert evidence in detail, or explain every alternative scenario. That would amount to requiring reasons for reasons.
5. There was nothing irrational in the inspector’s view that Japanese Knotweed might be controlled if permission were refused. The reasons challenge did not establish legal error or substantial prejudice.

Not stated in the judgment.