The Latest Advancement On Procedural Fairness In Planning Hearings

On the 5th December 2014, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Taylor Wimpey Ltd against the objecting residents in Great Dunmow, who had successfully challenged a previous appeal decision on the basis of material prejudice at the hearing.

The original application for outline planning permission to erect 100 new houses on a site in Essex was not granted. However, Taylor Wimpey Ltd- the developer- appealed by hearing, and on the 12th July 2012, the Inspector allowed the appeal.

Subsequently, the residents of Great Dunmow in Essex instigated a claim under the provisions of section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to challenge the decision of the Secretary of State in the grant of planning permission on appeal to the developer. They believed that the appeal was incorrectly determined- particularly given that the decision was made by hearing rather than inquiry- and were consequently successful in challenging the decision on the ground of procedural unfairness.

However, in the instant case (whereby the developer and the Secretary of State contended that the judge had erred in concluding that the applicable appeal hearing was procedurally unfair) the judge stated that the objectors did not suffer material procedural unfairness and the judge had made a misinterpretation in holding that there had been procedural unfairness.

In this case, Lord Justice Burnett stated that one of the ways of appealing against a refusal of planning permission was by way of a hearing rather than an inquiry. He specified that although the procedure at a planning hearing lacks the formality of a planning inquiry, the standards with regard to procedural unfairness in inquiries are very similar.

The cases of Hopkins Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Fairmount Investments Ltd v Secretary of...