A planning inspector who fails to give sufficient reasons for a decision risks having that decision overturned.
The Court of Appeal recently heard an appeal against a refusal to grant planning permission for a first-floor extension to a property in a conservation area.
The appeal was brought by a company which had its preliminary application for planning permission refused. The original planning inspector had reported that the proposed extension, with which he had no objection in principle, would be a discordant feature in the area and unduly dominant.
The company had subsequently prepared a revised, but quite similar, plan and submitted this to the local authority. A new inspector considered that the proposed extension would adversely affect the ambience of the street and would obscure the view of certain features of the area. He failed to explain why his opinion of the extension differed from that of the first inspector and so the company appealed against the decision, arguing that the inspector had not fulfilled his obligation to give reasons why his view was different. Since the two applications were similar, the first decision was material to the second decision and should be taken into account. The lower court held that it was sufficient that the second inspector did refuse permission. The company appealed.
The Court of Appeal took a different view. The second inspector had clearly disagreed with the view taken by the first inspector, but had failed to make clear the reasons why. By failing to comment on the original decision, it could not be demonstrated that the earlier report had been a material consideration in forming his opinion. His action had made it less likely that the company would be successful when it revised its plans, in the light of the earlier decision, and made a new application. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.