High Court Quashes Inspector’s “Special Measures” Decision in Uttlesford

On 7 August 2024, the High Court granted an application for statutory review of the Secretary of State’s Inspector’s decision refusing Weston Homes plc’s application for planning permission for the erection of 96 dwellings, parking, landscaping and public open space, access and cycle routes on a site to the north of Takeley, the largest village in Uttlesford District.

The application was made directly to the Secretary of State under s.62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“TCPA 1990”), inserted by s. 1 of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 to promote more efficient determination of applications for planning permission. Weston Homes had the choice as to whether to proceed in this way, rather than by an application to the local planning authority - Uttlesford District Council (“UDC”) - in the normal way, as the Secretary of State had on 8 February 2022 designated UDC (the fourth authority to be so designated) as one which was not adequately performing its function of determining applications for the purposes of s.62B of the TCPA 1990. Consequently, applications for planning permission for major development within the authority’s area could be made directly to the Secretary of State under s.62A of the TCPA 1990.

Holgate J (as he then was) upheld four of Weston Homes’ grounds of challenge, namely that:

• the Inspector erred in law in when he reduced the weight to be given to the BNG estimated for the proposal by taking into account a future legal requirement for BNG to be provided under s.90A and sched. 7A to the TCPA 1990 (introduced by the Environment Act 2021 with effect from 12 February 2024) contrary to the decision of Eyre J in NRS Saredon Aggregates Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2024] Env. L.R. 18; [2024] JPL 616;
• in breach of the principles in North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1992) 65 P & CR 137 at 145, the Inspector reached findings inconsistent with those of a previous inspector dealing with similar issues on the same site, without complying with his obligation to give legally adequate reasons for differing from that Inspector;
• the Inspector failed to take into account an obviously material consideration which could not be saved by Simplex;
• the reasons provided were legally inadequate.

This case is the most comprehensive consideration of the s.62A regime, and some lessons can be drawn from it, particularly given that there is no right of appeal from a s.62A decision. In circumstances where the procedure is intended to be efficient and avoid unnecessary delay, the judge warned PINS of the risk of cases being conducted with more haste and less speed.

Finally, this was a case in which the Inspector provided two witness statements, in which the judge found he had sometimes descended into the arena inappropriately and taken on the mantle of an advocate. There was one further warning: where evidence from an Inspector is truly necessary, it should be confined to neutral statements of fact.

The judgment can be found here.

James Maurici KC and Joel Semakula acted for Weston Homes plc, instructed by Matthew Steinbrecher and Andrew Moore of Winckworth Sherwood LLP.