Planning appeals and procedural fairness
In addition to the relevant statutory procedural requirements, the rules of fairness and natural justice apply in the determination of planning appeals, whichever method of determination is chosen. For instance, decided authority establishes that the following principles, inter alia, apply.
(A) The parties must have a reasonable opportunity of addressing the issues that may be determinative of the outcome. (B) These may or may not be raised by the inspector of his own volition. (C) It may be necessary to ask whether the parties could reasonably have anticipated that such issues had to be addressed. (D) If a party reasonably believes that a matter, which was in dispute, has been dealt with by way of agreement in a statement of common ground, it may be unfair to allow the issue to be reopened without that party being given a proper opportunity to address the issue.
More particularly, in relation to the first of those principles, in Hopkins Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 470, Jackson LJ stated: “Any participant in adversarial proceedings is entitled (1) to know the case which he has to meet and (2) to have a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions in relation to that opposing case.”
In addition to the relevant statutory procedural requirements, the rules of fairness and natural justice apply in the determination of planning appeals, whichever method of determination is chosen. For instance, decided authority establishes that the following principles, inter alia, apply.
(A) The parties must have a reasonable opportunity of addressing the issues that may be determinative of the outcome. (B) These may or may not be raised by the inspector of his own volition. (C) It may be necessary to ask whether the parties could reasonably have anticipated that such issues had to be addressed. (D) If a party reasonably believes that a matter, which was in dispute, has been dealt with by way of agreement in a statement of common ground, it may be unfair to allow the issue to be reopened without that party being given a proper opportunity to address the issue.
More particularly, in relation to the first of those principles, in Hopkins Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 470, Jackson LJ stated: “Any participant in adversarial proceedings is entitled (1) to know the case which he has to meet and (2) to have a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions in relation to that opposing case.”
In Carroll v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 316 (Admin); [2015] PLSCS 60, the claimant, an objector, applied to quash the decision of an inspector on a written representations appeal granting planning permission for a change of use of premises from Use Class B8 to Use Class C3.
The inspector accepted that, at the time the local planning authority refused planning permission, the use of the building fell within Use Class B1, but that subsequently the use had changed to a use within Use Class B8. Accordingly, he had amended the description in the appeal forms, and the appeal proceeded on that changed basis.
The court quashed the inspector’s decision, holding that the effect of the change in the basis of the appeal was so significant that the inspector should have brought it to the attention of the claimant and other third parties, and given them an opportunity to make representations. The claimant had not been aware of the developer’s written representations, and therefore had had no opportunity to respond before the statutory deadline expired. The claimant had suffered substantial prejudice, because his representations – had he been able to make them – might have affected the outcome of the appeal.
John Martin is a planning law consultant
